NO. 138: THE CHICAGO CONVENTION

No. 138

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

Having attended the Chicago Convention October 28-30, we are once more moved to examine the “abominations that were done there.” (Ezek. 9:4) Quite a few of the speakers again stressed 1954 – without offering even the minutest evidence that marked 1954 in any way whatever. Therefore, we now offer further comment on

Rev. 22:10, 11: Here is the interpretation Brother Johnson gave for this text: “He that is unjust (the tentatively justified, who are not actually justi­fied, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified, and not consecrate); and he that is filthy (the impenitent sinners, who in no sense are clean), let him be filthy still (remain in his then condition); and he that is righteous (Levites of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, who, being in the Court, are righteous), let him be righteous still; and he that is holy (Priests are holy, since they are in the Holy), let him be holy still.”

“Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel-Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to con­secrate and sinners to repent, for the tentatively justified and sinners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of v. 11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

We are in complete accord with the foregoing; but we would emphasize that this Scripture is a composite text, by which we mean part of it cannot apply in 1954, with the other parts of it applying in later years. If any one part of it applied in 1954, then all of it was fulfilled then. If every part of it did not apply at 1954, then none of it did. Thus, we inquire: Is there a Truth person anywhere – even of those deep in the clutches of Azazel – who would be so ridiculous as to claim that all of Rev. 22:10,11 was fulfilled in 1954? We doubt that any of them will champion such a view. Therefore, any attempt to apply the text piecemeal places such per­sons under the condemnation of St. Peter’s words: “And reckon the patience of our Lord as Salvation; even as our beloved Brother Paul, according to the wisdom im­parted to him, wrote to you; as also in All his Epistles, speaking in them concern­ing these things; in which some things are hard to be understood; which the uninstructed and Unstable (all crown-losers are unstable—See Jas. 1:8) PERVERT (Azazel means Perverter), as also the other Scriptures, to Their Own Destruction (2 Pet. 3:15-16, Dia.) Such vagary can only result in extreme humiliation and chagrin (the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” of the “unprofitable servant”—See Matt. 25:30; also Berean Comments: “Unprofitable servant – The Great Company class... Into outer darkness.... The darkness common to and resting upon the whole world of mankind .... Gnashing of teeth.... Sorrow, Disappointment and chagrin in every sense”. And we offer our opinion that such humiliation is rapidly approaching – much nearer than many may believe.

Insofar as R. G. Jolly has thus far declared himself, he has attempted to eliminate only entrance into the Court for new Youthful Worthies, having stated several tines that the door to the Court is closed only for entrance, but not for ejection of those who are there. But Rev. 22:10,11 clearly states that when none can come into Court justification, then “he that is filthy, let him be filthy still” – that is, remain in his unjustified condition. But, as his “double mind” so often does, he just reverses this whole situation: He is now making pronounced effort toward “the filthy” to bring them into justification. Yes, the “unstable” do “pervert” just about everything they touch!

All classes of the text “remain” where they are when the text really applies. But, has R. G. Jolly said anything about the Great Company “remaining” where they are – no chance of the second-death for them? Or, has he said one word about Youth­ful Worthies “remaining” in their standing at 1954? Of course, this latter question makes much of his present teaching self-evident nonsense; because his Youthful Worthy “sifters” (?) did not even put in a public appearance until 1955 – a full year after he had closed his entrance into the Court. As Brother Johnson so ably analyzed: When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. We must remember that these crown-losers – even though they were crown-­losers before being made manifest as such – were not ejected from the Holy until they openly revolutionized and were thus manifested. The same would probably apply to unfaithful Youthful Worthies. They may have lost their favor with God long before they are manifested as such; but, they would not be ejected from the Court until they are manifested by their revolutionism.

Also, Brother Johnson’s teaching on Rev. 22:10,11, when its fulfillment would come, would be for the faithful remaining on earth to exhort and encourage each other to “continue in the faith” – to finish their course with joy. If, as R. G. Jolly now claims, the saints have all left the earth, it would leave then only the cleansed Great Company and good Youthful Worthies in the picture – to help each other to remain faithful, while allowing the “filthy” to “remain filthy still.” Self-evidently, the vast majority of the Great Company have as yet not even recog­nized themselves, much less have they made any visible effort at Class cleansing. The Holy, too, is empty – has been empty since 1950, according to his claims.

FURTHER HIDEOUS EISEGESIS

There was one candidate for immersion; and R. G. Jolly stressed to that young man that Jesus’ merit is now imputed to him for justification – at the same time informing him that he is in the Epiphany Camp. While he did not directly say so, the only conclusion to be drawn is that he now has Christ divided between the Court and the Camp. It seems unbelievable that any one schooled in the sober teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson could swallow such interpretational humbug! It is contrary to all logic, and directly contradictory of the teachings of both Star Members who repeatedly taught that the MERIT is on EMBARGO IN THE COURT until all the elect have finished their courses on earth. It is a fitting parallel of the Vexation experienced by Jeremiah: “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jer. 5:31) Yes, the “end thereof” will be a sorry spectacle indeed!

Note now Brother Johnson’s explanation of the double (folded) curtain on the front of the Tabernacle (E-4:344): “As we are aware, every important feature of God’s plan, illustrative from the standpoint of the At-one-ment, is symbolized in connection with the Tabernacle; hence the lord has taken care to symbolize Tentative and Vitalized Justification by that curtain of the goats’ hair (Ex. 26:7-9) which was doubled ‘in the forefront of the Tabernacle,’ the part visible to those in the Court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typ­ing Vitalized Justification. The following considerations will make this clear. The covering badger (seal) skins, clearly visible to those in the camp, types The Christ as they appear to the world, i.e., as unattractive and repulsive. The rams’ skins dyed red, hidden under the first covering, represent the merit of Jesus’ humanity. The ten curtains of goats’ hair covered by the rams’ skins dyed red represent the justified humanity of the Church as covered by Christ’s merit. The eleventh, the uncovered curtain, i.e., that which was doubled ‘in the forefront of the Tabernacle,’ represents not the Church’s justified humanity, but Justifica­tion by faith, the part (as stated above) visible to those in the court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The linen curtains type The Christ as new creatures, in whom as such there is no sin (1 Pet. 2:22; Rom. 8:1-4; 1 John 3:6,9). This curtain as doubled was first antitypically brought to our attention in the Tower of Dec. 15, 1909, in the article on the Wedding Garment, and was repeatedly so brought to our attention since that time, by the true channel for the seasonal meat, our dear Pastor, in the distinction between Tentative and Vitalized Justification; but the part visible in the antitypical court is now denied by the counterfeit channel (just as it is denied by the present leadership of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement – although not denied completely, as did JFR, but PERVERTED just as he has perverted other vital doctrines to accommodate the present “strange fire” – false doctrine – of Epiphany Campers Consecrated—JJH) for giving seasonal meat to the priests, which, as a corporation, was the true channel for the work of the antitypical Mahlite Merarites.”

If those in the Court saw the front side of the curtain as an evidence of their tentative justification, just what does the Camper now see as an evidence of his Justification? And, If “every important feature of God’s plan” is symbolized in the Tabernacle, let R. G. Jolly tell us where his Campers Consecrated is symbolized there. And let us not forget that that curtain bespeaks the same meaning in both the Gospel Age and Epiphany Tabernacles, the latter of which is still operating.

In violent difference to R. G. Jolly’s present contention, Brother Johnson stated in Volume E-4 that those forced from the Court into the Camp automatically lose their tentative justification for consecration for this Gospel Age – or until the New Covenant is operative. But the present leader of the LHMM now reverses that – ­he’s giving them tentative justification in the Camp, instead of taking it from them.

Here is Brother Johnson’s conclusion:

“The Youthful Worthies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having ‘the faith of Abraham’ (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith. They are among the believers referred to under (2). They are however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the House­hold of Faith, having used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel-Age Household of Faith who persist into and during the Epiphany.” (E-4:406)

As to R. G. Jolly’s false teaching about the Miriam class and HIS Epiphany Campers Consecrated, let us consider Brother Johnson’s teaching in E-ll:293 (published in 1948): “Accordingly, for the Millennium and the Little Season Aaron types the Ancient and Youthful Worthies as the mouthpiece of the Christ among men. Hence the prophetess, Miriam, coupled with Aaron in v. 20 as his sister, suggests that mouthpieces subordi­nate to the Ancient and Youthful Worthies are typed by Miriam. We know that believ­ing Jews who in the Old Testament times were not faithful enough for Ancient Worthi­ship, nor in the Gospel Age faithful enough to be transferred from Moses into Christ, and that believing Gentiles during the Gospel Age who while faithful unto death (or until ejected from the Court in the finished picture—JJH) in justification, did not consecrate, will constitute a class of saved ones distinct from the unbeliev­ing Jews and Gentiles of pre-Millennial times who will become faithful restitutionists. Such pre-Millennial believing Jews and Gentiles are the sons of Joel 2:28 and Is. 60:4 ......

“The unconsecrated but faithful tentatively justified of the Gospel Age undergo similar experiences for similar reasons, which also manifests the same glorious graces; for these and the believing Jews will be associated as the FIFTH ELECT CLASS in a Millennial World-wide work, hence their similar preparation for that work.” (E-12:187,188—Published In 1949)

In the face of all this, R. G. Jolly has the impudence of Azazel in his false claims – especially in his explanation that Brother Johnson and That Servant both meant that there would be Youthful Worthies “until Restitution sets in”; that there probably would be Youthful Worthies on up to Jacob’s Trouble! But here is what they taught:

“But the two articles flatly contradict one another, that of Z ‘l8, 355-357 plainly affirming, and that of Z ‘20, 21-28, flatly denying our dear Pastor’s thought that those who consecrating and proving faithful in the interval between the close of the General Call in 1881 and the inauguration of the earthly phase of the Kingdom, and finding no crowns available for themselves, will become associated in reward and service with the Ancient Worthies in the Kingdom.” (E-4:337)

“If our dear readers will keep in mind that The Tower’s denial of Tentative Justification during this Age is the foundation of its rejecting the Scriptural doctrine that those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no Spirit-begetting for Gospel-Age purposes possible, will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, they will be able by Scriptural, reasonable and factual thinking com­pletely to overthrow every argument that the article under review presents to defend its thesis.” (E-4:342)

And if the lord’s people will “continue in what they have learned (from the faithful Pastors and Teachers) and been assured of” they will be able to overthrow every argument presented in favor of their “new views,” their “strange fire,” their perversions of Tentative Justification, as well as their division of Christ’s merit between the Court and the Camp!

CONCERNING JESSE HEMERY

One of the speakers offered several comments of praise concerning Jesse Hemery of England. Yes, Brother Russell did hold the man in high esteem – or he would not have put him in charge of the London Tabernacle, and the work in Britain. Also, at one time he held similar good opinion of J. F. Rutherford. But, to offer such com­pliments to these men without relating their ultimate end leaves a sad lack, as we see it; and certainly inferentially casts a shadow of complaint against Brother Johnson and his experiences with both of them. No longer did Brother Johnson refer to “Brother” Hemery, because he considered him sadly doubleminded, hypocritical and a rank revolutionist in the Epiphany. He was one more who claimed “harmony” with Brother Russell – all the while he repudiated large parts of the Parousia Truth, and rejected completely all Epiphany Truth. At his death a few years ago he no longer accepted the chronology, the Lord’s Second Presence, Brother Russell’s inter­pretation of the “seven angels” of Rev. 2 and 3; and many other vital Parousia truths.

We simply relate these points for the benefit of such of our readers who may not be informed; and we believe the Scripture in Ezekiel 33:13 is the proper one to quote here: “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered: but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.” Nor should we remember the righteousness of those who turn from that righteousness to do iniquity if the lord does not remember it! The same goes for those who have com­mitted iniquity, but turn from their evils: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him; he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.” (Ezek. 33:15,16) Yet there are some who say, “The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.” (Ezek. 33:17) And, if that be the Lord’s attitude, is there any reason why we should not hold the same opinion? And just what conclusions must we draw concerning those present in that Chicago meet­ing who later in their testimonies praised the discourse regarding Jesse Hemery, etc.?

CONCERNING CAMPERS CONSECRATED

During the Sunday morning Question Meeting a number of questions were presented regarding Epiphany Campers; and R. G. Jolly made quite some ado about a “sifter” stating the matter as Campers Consecrated, instead of Consecrated Campers. In his distinctly ha-ha manner he elaborated on the propriety of stating one saw a “black cat”: How would it sound to say a “cat black”? In this nonsense he either demonstrated a tragic lack in English education, or he was simply “throwing dust” to avoid answer­ing the real point in the question. It is not general work-a-day practice to place the adjective behind the noun, but it is certainly common enough, and considered good English, to do so in general prose and poetry writings. For Instance, how often did Brother Russell and Brother Johnson refer to the Church Militant; the Church Triumphant; Warriors bold; soldiers brave and true; The Church real and nominal, etc.; God Almighty; Saints humiliated; the Kingdom glorious; Captains Courageous, etc. All of these have the adjective follow the noun – a construction sometimes used to add euphony or variety to one’s writings. Therefore, when R. G. Jolly resorts to profuse oration over a statement that is grammatically correct, and which does not change in the least the error he is attempting to establish, he is simply perpetrat­ing another hoax upon his gullible audience. It seems it’s not enough that he talk nonsense on the Truth; he also now has to talk nonsense on the English language to add to the confusion of the brethren – besmirching the Truth (the Faith once de­livered unto the Saints) while attempting such “sleight-of-hand.” We all know there was a time when he himself knew better – when he himself would have laughed at another who presented such flapdoodle; and he is now a lurid example of the fate that befalls those who come into the clutches of Azazel. And equally tragic is the spectacle of his audience laughing approval of his “path of error” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.), Instead of attempting to retrieve him from his sad situation. Indeed, such people do become partaker of his sins. “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” (1 Tim. 5:22—See Berean Comment) When R. G. Jolly himself became entangled with his present errors, It was because he ignored this text in his collaboration with his “cousin” Krewson. He could have saved himself and possibly his “cousin” Krewson had he “continued in what he had learned and been assured of” from the faithful-Pastors and Teachers – The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (1 Tim. 4:16)

Of course, all of this was done to “pervert,” to put the lie upon, the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Both of them taught that the opportunity to enter Youthful Worthiship would prevail until the world was in such a turmoil in the spasms of Anarchy that no work toward such could be done by any of us. And Brother Johnson clearly taught in E-l0:672 that some Youthful Worthies not yet con­secrated would be won AFTER Babylon’s fall (after Armageddon). And in view of our refutation aforegoing of R. G. Jolly’s 1954 date, then his present contention regard­ing that date is just some more of his nonsense.

And his contention that his Campers Consecrated will receive their “higher” reward than other restitutionists generally by their superior characters they now develop is likewise as porous as a sieve. As Brother Johnson has clearly taught, All who survive the Little Season must enter it with perfect characters; and the reward for such character will be “Every man a King.” Can his Campers Consecrated possibly be any more than a King in the Ages to follow? Just how puerile and volatile can he become anyway?

HIS “HIGHER” CLASS

He was also quite emphatic that higher classes are never led by lower classes, and here again he shows his meager knowledge of Epiphany truth. In the Samuel-Saul type, who was anointed to be King (leader) in Israel? Was is not Saul – a type of the Gospel-Age crown-lost leaders? And in that time between 1849 and 1874 were not all the denominations in Big Babylon dominated by crown-losers? In fact, in all the groups in Little Babylon during the entire Epiphany, would R. G. Jolly contend that even one of those groups (other than the Epiphany Movement under Brother Johnson) had a crown-retainer as their leader? Yet Brother Johnson said there were saints in all those groups, with more in the Society than even in his own movement. There is also another outstanding and timely illustration of this in the Bible, on which we hope to elaborate in a future writing.

THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER PRESENT TRUTH

In the first article, “Led By The Spirit – Drawn By God” on p. 66 of this paper is an article, which is in considerable part a word-for-word reproduction of an article by J. F. Rutherford in the Dec. 1, 1918 Watch Tower. The latter in turn borrowed it from Brother Russell, which was his legal and moral privilege; and it is to his credit that he did not attempt to inject any of his own errors into what Brother Russell had written (of course, he had not yet invented his Jonadabs or earthly Great Multitude). But not so R. G. Jolly! He must sully that superb article by infusing Campers Consecrated into it. Of course, in this he employs the Hitler technique at every opportunity: Make the falsehood big enough, and repeat it often enough, and a certain element will eventually believe it. And, generally speaking, Brother Russell’s writ­ings are of such sublime composition that they still look quite good even with some error injected into them; and they certainly tend to embellish that error with a certain halo of truth. However, when any editor stoops so low in “his path of error” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.), he simply reveals his desperation, and displays to all unprejudiced minds that his “double mind” is still very aggressive for the works of Azazel (“one goat for Azazel” – Lev. 16:8).

Abreast of the foregoing was his attempt at Chicago to justify his Campers Con­secrated by saying “somewhere in Parousia Volume One, and somewhere in Epiphany Vol. Four” (he couldn’t remember the exact place) both Messengers supported his present error. Strangely – very strangely – Volume E-4 was not on the display table, although the other Epiphany volumes were there. Just happenstance, would you say? Well, maybe! (Of course, all Epiphany-enlightened brethren know that this Epiphany Vol. Four contains basic doctrinal teachings for the Youthful Worthies and Great Company, and especially for the characteristics of the latter class. None of us need be de­ceived by the Azazelian errors now presented against these teachings if they adhere closely to the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching therein.) Of course, those of us who know what Brother Russell and Brother Johnson taught, we know they definitely contradicted his present contentions instead of supporting then.

As our readers know, we have contended all along that nothing – just nothing ­occurred in 1954 to demonstrate it is a prophetic date. R. G. Jolly has an answer for us on that: Plenty happened then, he said, to mark the date. Didn’t the Attestatorial Service start then? Yes, he embarked on his big error then; and that is something for all of us to conjure with. Only a person emboldened by Azazel would still contend for a parallel to 1914-16. His “parallel” is now twelve years old; and still has accomplished Just nothing when compared with 1914-16. If our state­ment here is not 100% the truth, let R. G. Jolly set out what occurred in 1914-16; then give the parallel happennings in 1954-56. But to help him along somewhat, let him consider that we made widespread attack upon his “path of error” (his Attesta­torial Service) in 1955. Was there anything even remotely similar in 1915? Also, Sr. Condell in Jamaica and Brother Baxendale in England, openly deserted him in those years – two people held in high esteem by Brother Johnson.

AZAZEL MEANS PERVERTER

It is an unsavory coincidence that about the first doctrinal deflection of J. F. Rutherford after Brother Russell’s demise was on Tentative Justification. And one of the first major deflections of R. G. Jolly after Brother Johnson’s demise is also on Tentative Justification. While he does not deny the doctrine – as did JFR, he has perverted it out of all recognition to what Brother Russell and Brother Johnson taught about it. He is even carrying it over through the whole Basileia – a faith justification into a “works” Age – an elective doctrine into the free-grace administration. Both Star Members clearly taught that Tentative Justification ceases when the Gospel (Faith) Age ceases, and that it operates only in the Court (in fact, is typed by the Court) in the Gospel Age and Epiphany Tabernacles. And also unsavory is his perversion of the Talents parable (giving the “good and faith­ful” commendation to the “unprofitable servant”). Here again Brother Johnson had to refute J. F. Rutherford’s perversion of that parable – just as we have had to refute R. G. Jolly on his perversion of that Talents parable.

Also, as did J. F. Rutherford, he distorts and perverts many features of the Tabernacle to accommodate his “new views” (false doctrines) – the linen curtain; Tentative Justification; no Laver for his new consecrators; rejects from the Court into the Camp, along with his Consecrated Campers, and the whole nominal church all mixed into one – a “mix-uppery” if there ever was one! And, since 1954, an identical twin in Campers Consecrated to J. F. Rutherford’s Jonadabs (now the Large Multitude). And all of these we have refuted – mainly from the writings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson – just as Brother Johnson was obliged to do with J. F. Rutherford’s errors. Strange indeed, isn’t it, that each new error pre­sented by R. G. Jolly bears such close resemblance to the errors of J. F. Ruther­ford (as though he has been studying his technique instead of “continuing in that which he had learned and been assured of” from both Star Members)? Clearly enough, both of them (J. F. Rutherford and R. G. Jolly) have had the same Instructor – Azazel, the Perverter. Both of them have trodden the same path of error, and it requires no savant to discern this. Truly, “we are not of them that sleep”! – although we faith­fully attempt to “turn back the sinner (crown-loser) from his path of error.” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.)

The following from That Servant is apropos for such: “But there are some who still have a kind of frenzy of mind, and some of these attacking us. They launch forth as though they would demolish us, and they battle for the error as though it were the truth. In their warfare they use the weapons of slander, malice, hatred, strife, and various other works of the flesh and the devil. Their choice of weapons is a proof that they are under a delusion, blinding them through false doctrine (such as Epiphany Campers Consecrated, etc.—JJH).” Please see 2 Thes. 2:10,11 and Berean Comments.

“Yea, the Lord shall give that which is good; and our land shall yield her increase. Righteousness shall go before him; and shall set us in the way of his steps.” (Psa. 85:12,13)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 137: THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION

No. 137

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

According to our custom, we once more attended the LHMM Convention over Labor Day this year; and we were bemused – and saddened – by the perversions, the falsehood, and the jugglery again so much in evidence. While much could be said concerning the sad inadequacies of the meetings in general, we shall confine the present comments to the Question Meeting by R. G. Jolly on Monday morning.

1954 AGAIN: In response to certain questions, he once more stressed 1954 from the type in Leviticus 12, offering this as “proof” that entrance into the Gospel-Age Tabernacle Court is now permanently closed, thus ending opportunity for further Youthful Worthies to enter that Elective Class. This he does in the face of our repeated quotations from both Star Members’ teachings that such entrance will be available between the Ages “until Restitution sets in.” Of course, there isn’t one word – not even a remote inference in Lev. 12 for such conclusions; but that doesn’t restrain R. G. Jolly. He can see it there anyway – even if it isn’t there! Note Brother Johnson’s sound summation of this type In E-4:99:

“The purifying of the mother during these 80 days types two things: (1) the ridding of the Truth (in its application to the Great Company, etc.) of all error attaching to it; and (2) the purifying of the faithful and measurably faithful servants of the Truth of such defilements as would unfit them for their place In the Millennial Age, as well as for a special attestatorial service from October, 1954, onward.”

Not one word in the foregoing respecting entrance into the Court, or end of the Youthful Worthy call; and R. G. Jolly’s reading such things into it is in exact cast with his kinsmen all during the Age who have done likewise – to such an extent that they have often forced respectable thinking people to cast aside the Bible, thus producing the conclusion that the Bible’s best ‘would-be’ friends have often been its worst enemies.

In this same connection, he attempts to make a case for his Campers Consecrated by stating that the general group of Restitutionists will be represented in the Camp in the Millennial Age. Yes, they will indeed! The Camp of the Millennial Age Tabernacle will represent the world undergoing restitution. But in the sane meet­ing – in answer to another question – he stressed that we are self-evidently still in the Gospel Age – with which we agree. Why then attempt construction of another Tabernacle now? In E-11:591 Brother Johnson clearly states that of the Gospel-­Age, Epiphany and Millennial-Age Tabernacles only one can operate at a time. The Epiphany being the last special period of the Gospel Age, and this special period being still with us, it is self-evident nonsense to attempt inauguration of another Tabernacle. Of course, Brother Johnson has told us that when these crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense; so we should “think it not strange” to see his conclusions demonstrated before our eyes. Our only sur­prise is to find it operating so close to home. This we had never surmised before October 1950.

 Some of the other speakers also stressed 1954, and the accompanying Attestator­ial service; but none of them pointed to one iota of proof that their efforts from then to now have accomplished even one mediocre deed. In fact, since that date R. G. Jolly has been steadily losing the support and approval of some most highly regarded by Brother Johnson – as instance, Brother Roach in Trinidad, Sister Condell in Jamaica, Brother Baxendale In England, and others here in America. Nor can he point to one newcomer in the LHMM who could even by strained analysis be consid­ered capable of replacing those he has lost. His only accomplishment during the past twelve years has been the immersion of some children, and a few adults, and the printing of a ‘great’ multitude of new tracts (as is the usual procedure of antitypical King Saul – type of the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon). Even his Present Truth (the name now a misnomer) subscriptions have shown a considerable decline.

RECEIVING EPIPHANY TRUTH

Along this same line, the Question was asked as to when the Great Company and Youthful Worthies would receive Epiphany Truth for their cleansing. And what was his answer? Why, he says they don’t need Epiphany Truth for their cleansing – ­quite a few had died without receiving it! (Yes, quite a few Saints died without receiving Parousia Truth before such time that it was imperative they receive the Truth if among the Very Elect—JJE). Such an answer as this repudiates large parts of what the Epiphany Messenger taught, and actually belittles the Epiphany Truth and Messenger. Of course, he in forced to this position because his Attestatorial Service has not been bringing them into Epiphany Truth – nor into the LHMM. This is in keeping with his contention also that his Campers do not need a Laver to walk a ‘narrow way.’ In this connection, consider now Brother Johnson’s comment in E-10:114:

“1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him Into the Truth by Passover, 1956.”

Just what “Truth” was Brother Johnson discussing here if it is not Epiphany Truth? Also, when the Epiphany Messenger said the crown-losers in Big Babylon wouldn’t be cleansed until after Armageddon, didn’t he mean that the events must occur before the “last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956” (believing as he did that 1956 would witness the beginning of Anarchy)? The outbreak of the Time of Trouble was exactly what occurred with the Little Flock in 1914-16; and let us not forget that 1914-16 was pointedly corroborated by that Trouble upon the world then. And to have 1954-56 parallel fit at all, similar details (“signs of the time”) would of necessity have had to occur then. Did they occur then? No, of course, not! Thus, it is self-evident nonsense to stress the “parallel,” with not one scintilla of support­ing “signs of the times” to substantiate it. Only one befuddled by Azazel would assume such a ridiculous position.

Following is Brother Johnson’s answer to a similar question:

Question: Wherein does the cleansing of the crown-losers consist?

Answer: Properly and clearly to answer this question we must distinguish between several things: (1) between the things in them that must be cleansed; and (2) between individual cleansings up to the time of their class cleansings as such. There are two distinct classes of things from which crown-losers must be cleansed: (1) sin, selfishness and worldliness, and (2) error. Crown-losers as individuals up to the time that crown-losers as a class obtain their cleansing, have had to be purified from the first set of things, i.e., sin, selfishness and worldliness; for if they would not in this life have been cleansed from these in the sense of overcoming them, they would have to die the second death. But this class of crown-losers do not necessarily in this life have to cleanse themselves from the second set of things, i.e., errors; for if this had been the requirement, the vast bulk of the crown-losers would have died the second death, e.g., the various crown-losers who all through the Age died in Babylonian errors (the same as many Little Flock members also died in Babylonian errors until such time as it became necessary for all – as a class – to receive Parousia Truth—JJH); the spy-members of both Harvests, and the bulk of the crown-losers in the Epiphany Levite groups, who have died without getting the Epiphany Truth. Almost all of the just-mentioned kinds of crown-losers died without getting the meat in due season, and would thus have gone into the second death, If as a part of their cleansing God had required them to get rid in this life of their errors and accept the Truth due in their times (which also sets aside R. G. Jolly’s unqualified conten­tion that the due Truth is for all the consecrated—JJH) Hence for the saving of their lives God has required of them merely to cleanse themselves in this life from the spots on their garments consisting of sin, selfishness and worldliness. The time of the cleansing of such from error and of their getting the Truth as due will be after their resurrection as spirits (Rev. 7:17). This view of the two­fold cleansing of such crown-losers is necessary, or we would have to conclude that all crown-losers who did not in this life get the cleansing of both sets of evils above-mentioned died the second death, which would put the vast bulk of these into the second death. But the case will be different with the class cleansing of the crown-losers, which is to set in shortly after the 60th Epiphany post is erected. They will have to cleanse themselves from their errors (including R. G. Jolly and his intimate kinsmen—JJH) and accept Parousia and Epiphany Truth, as well as overcome their sins, selfishness and worldliness. (E-4:146-147)

And below we present some more of the same:

“Let the Levites (1) submit to their being sprinkled with the water of separa­tion, the Epiphany truths on the divisions of the Lord’s people in their respective groups. This means: Let them accept the Epiphany, the separating truths, in part literally and in part typically and antitypically set forth In the seasonal meat on the Little Flock. Great Company, Youthful Worthies, Second Death class, the World and Chronology, as these lines of Truth are now going forth (the basic Epiphany Truths—JJH); (2) let them by the sharp razor of Epiphany truths and exposures shave themselves clean of their symbolic hairs, powers that do not belong to them and (3) let them wash their robes, both in the blood of the Lamb and the water of the Word (Rev. 7:14; Nun. 8:7,12). This threefold process will cleanse them; and will greatly inure to a peace and unity that will be pleasing to God and helpful to the brethren. It will spread the Christian spirit of true liberty, equality and fraternity in real peace and unity. Will the Levites do these things? Not now, but later; for they need more experiences both at the hands of the fit-man and of Azazel, for the destruction of their flesh. And while we know that means sufferings for them, in which they have our sympathy and prayers; yet as the indispensables of their cleansing we pray the Lord to give them such experiences, that their spirits might be saved in the day (the Epiphany period—JJH) of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5). Increasingly will this enable them to appreciate and spread Christian liberty, equality and fraternity in Christian peace and unity. Grant it in Thy Grace and Mercy, 0 Lord!” (E-6, pp. 163-164)

And more of same from E-4, pp. 70-71:

 “Azazel means averter, perverter, and is Satan (1 Cor. 5:5) in his capacity of using the Great Company to avert and pervert the Lord’s Truth and arrangements (as we witnessed at the Philadelphia Labor Day Convention—JJH); i.e., to work REVOLUTIONISM, which the High Priest (through His members) attacks and resists by Scriptural teachings, Reason, and History; i.e., by an exposure of the acts of the Revolutionists.... The sprinkling with the water of separation represents their cleansing from more or less Adamic corruption, while the washing of their robes Implies their ridding themselves by the Truth of evil qualities which their measurable willfulness developed..... in order to remove their rebellions against the Lord’s Truth and arrangements.”

“PROFUSION OF WORDS TO NO PROFIT”

Quite a few of the Questions were beyond R. G. Jolly’s comprehension; and with such he simply indulged in voluminous prattle, at which he is quite adept. He can always be depended upon to express a sentence in two or three paragraphs ­especially when he is trying to cover up something, confuse the brethren, or evade the issue. And yet he is brazen enough to offer as his “proof” E-10:114, which DIRECTLY contradicts his whole contentions – makes a shambles of his entire “house built upon the sand.” Thus, once more we quote from Brother Johnson respecting such:

“Why do they so often quote passages to prove points positively disproven by those very passages? Is it not because they are in Azazel’s hands. and are thus blinded by him, and at his discretion palm off his errors on the dear unsuspect­ing sheep of God’s flock.”

Other ATROCITIES: In answer to another Question, he attempted to berate the “sifter” for reporting his statement in Chicago last October that his Campers Con­secrated are now inscribing their names in the Book of Life. According to him, we misrepresented him by reporting he said All Restitutionists were now inscrib­ing their names in the Book of Life. This is another falsehood. Any of our brethren who wish to check his statement with what we did say in our No. 126 paper, pp. 3-4, may do so, which we quote in part:

“There was also the Question: Do the Youthful Worthies and the Consecrated Epiphany Campers begin to inscribe their names in the Book of Life at their conse­cration in this life? To this R. G. Jolly answered, Yes – for both classes – and gave quite some elaborate “proof.” Well, here is Brother Johnson’s dis-proof of R. G. Jolly in answer to what is meant by names being written in the Book of Life.”

We had seen the Question before the brother put it in for R. G. Jolly’s answer, so we were specially alerted for the answer, which was an unqualified “Yes” – they are now inscribing their names in the Book of Life. His attempt now to evade his error, and actually accuse us of evil and misrepresentation, as he grossly misrepre­sents us, is characteristic of him, and reveals the caliber of man he is. Little wonder Brother Johnson considered it necessary to warn the General Church that R. G. Jolly has a “bad conscience,” and is a “false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser.” (See E-10:591, par. 1)

In a desperate attempt to whitewash himself on this “Book of Life” issue, he then proceeded to claim that his Campers Consecrated have their names “prospectively” in the Book of Life – “the same as the Youthful Worthies now have theirs ‘prospectively’ therein” (in direct contradiction to what the Epiphany Messenger taught as quoted in our paper No. 126—JJH). Thus, he simply adds confusion to his former confusion (“confusion worse confounded”) – caused, of course, by his persistent attempts to couple his “non-existent” Class with a Class clearly defined in the Scripture.

He was also brazen enough to tell the brethren that no one could detect the difference in Epiphany Campers Consecrated and Youthful Worthies (between the elect and non-elect!), the difference was so slight! We agree as to his Campers Consecrated and the Youthful Worthies who have imbibed his “strange fire” (false doctrine), that so long as they are enmeshed in these errors there is probably very little difference, if any, between them. This condition will exist until they are cleansed from these errors. Let him produce one Scripture anywhere to prove a Campers Consecrated Class here in the end of this Age! And while he is consider­ing that, let him also explain Brother Johnson’s teaching of the present Youthful Worthy standing, who are now of the Elective Salvation in the Court – quite in contrast to his Campers Consecrated that he himself admits are of the Free-Grace Salvation. To attempt any consolidation of these sharp contrasts is simply some more of his Azazelian nonsense to support his offering of “strange fire” before the Lord. Note now the following by Brother Johnson (which we have already given on p. four of our No. 126 paper, but is now set aside by R. G. Jolly):

“The Ancient Worthies begin and Youthful Worthies also at consecration begin to inscribe their characters into the earthly features of the Oath-bound phase. If faithful, they will have their names written in heaven (Heb, 12:23) at the beginning of the Little Season, for they are among the antitypical Millennial-Age first born (Levites) who had no inheritance In the land (a status that will never be attained by any of the quasi-elect—JJH).... Thus all the elect classes will ultimately have their characters inscribed into the all-embracing Abrahamic Covenant in one or another of its features. In the Millennium, the non-elect, the Restitution class (including all the quasi-elect—JJH), will have to develop their characters in harmony with the NEW BOOK OF LIFE, the New Covenant revelations, which will then be given. As they progress up the highway of holiness, they will be symbolically writing their names in this OTHER Book of Life – inscribing their characters into the New Covenant.”

A quotation from Brother Russell also applies quite well here: “While Satan is represented as being the great arch-anemy, he also is accredited with using agents. Chief amongst his agents, according to the Bible, are those fallen angels of whom he is the prince – ‘the prince of devils.’ As Jesus declared, ‘His servants ye are to whom ye render service.’ In consequence of this rule, we understand that many are professedly servants of God (all the Azazel Goat class are professedly servants of God, but while in Azazel’s clutches they are actually his servants in their evil acts—JJH) who are deceiving themselves, who are really the servants of the wicked one; for his works they do, as Jesus said. They co-labor for the upbuilding of unrighteousness, iniguity, injustice, and in holding down the Truth (such as R. G. Jolly is doing in casting aside the Star Members’ teachings on the Book of Life, the quasi-elect, etc—JJH), and in misleading the people...... In the great Time of Trouble that is approaching, apparently Satan and his servants will be overwhelmed in that trouble in a manner not expected by them.” (May 15, 1915 WT, Reprint 5693, top, col. 2)

STILL “FALSELY ACCUSING”

Again, this “false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser” accused us of contending there are still Saints living on earth “to gain a following.” Those acquainted with the facts (and R. G. Jolly certainly is acquainted with them!) know that we have never lived off the Truth; that through our generosity the Truth has lived and prospered off us, as we ‘paid’ for the Truth in faithfulness thereto. “Buy the Truth” has always been uppermost with us as we have adhered to its doctrines and principles – nor have we ever ‘sold’ it for personal advantage, to “gain a follow­ing,” nor to “follow a multitude to do evil” (See Ex. 23:2). And R. G. Jolly him­self has certainly “eaten of our bread”; but we have never eaten any of his. Therefore, his charge against us is simply malicious and slanderous falsehood, an act of desperation to divert attention from our annihilative refutations of his perversions (Azazel means Perverter).

And what more need we say about his many perversions, his revolutionisms, his falsehood, name-calling and trickery exhibited from the platform at this Labor Day Convention! He entertained himself quite extensively – along with the ‘like-minded’ in his audience – about “wishy-washy” brethren. And he is always at his most “loquacious,” most “repetitious,” most “effusive,” “false-accusing” best when he’s ‘entertaining’ before an audience of his smiling and approving henchmen – when he’s sure he’ll be safe. (See E-10:591) But whenever he sees us without his ‘army’ with him, he moves very rapidly in the other direction. Of course, he had only his own opinion to substantiate his words; but we have the authority of God’s Word on all crown-losers – members of his Class (Jas. 1:8; 4:8; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:19,20—See Berean Comments), as well as the teachings of both Star Members. And it is well to recall that the same tactics were employed by That Evil Servant against Brother Johnson and other faithful brethren. According to him, the faithful ones who felt duty-bound before the Lord to refute his sins of teaching and practice were “the opposition,” “sifters,” “second-death deceivers,” “tools of the Adversary,” etc. His pet text early in the Epiphany was, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19) In this accusation, however, he was for once telling the truth – those who left him were indeed not “of” his class! Back in 1918-1925 at times he actually shed copious tears while addressing the brethren because the class he mislabeled as “That Evil Servant” were “vilifying” him. We now offer a few comments by Brother Johnson on wishy-washy people of the Class of R. G. Jolly (See E-4:88-93):

“The Great Company (and R. G. Jolly admits being one of them—JJH) have usurped the office and persecuted the persons of their faithful brethren (p. 88, top).... By their double-dealing fail to qualify for the Bride of Christ; and their condition would be pitiable indeed, unless the Lord should arrange some other salvation for then (p. 90, middle).... Their course toward the Lord, the Truth and the remainder of the Lord’s people has not been a praiseworthy one (p. 92-6).... Altogether as a class they have been more or less wayward (p. 93, top).... through false teachings they corrupted the wells of Truth (p. 93, middle).”

With such a description of him, and his kinsmen, staring him in the face from the pen of the Epiphany Messenger (Truths he was zealous to uphold before he himself was manifested as a crown-loser), he is indeed well qualified (?) to orate on “wishy-washy” people.

Brother Johnson also had this to say of R. G. Jolly’s kinsmen early in the Epiphany: “What are the forms of priestly fellowship wherein no one else shares? Do they not consist of the exclusive use of the privileges of the antitypical Lampstand, Table of Shewbread and Incense Altar, while the Church is in the flesh?”

This furniture in the Holy is no longer available to those forced out of the Holy because of their revolutionisms. Therefore, any attempt by such “rejects” to present advancing Truth is simply adding impudence to their other sins – especially so, if they by their new “truth” (?) set aside the sound interpretations of the Laodicean Star – such teachings as a consecrated class in the Camp here in the Gospel Age, Justification outside the linen curtain of Christ’s righteousness, the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan typing such Campers, etc. The mere fact that R. G. Jolly has been ejected from the Lampstand presence (and he himself admits this fact) is sufficient cause for us to reject any tampering he may attempt with the teachings provided by the Laodicean Star. And as he proceeds boldly to do this, we pity him, and we fear for him. We may say more about this in a future writing.

Those of us who are recipients of such abuse from him may well comfort our­selves with the thought that such attacks are always meted out to those who faith­fully walk in the Master’s footsteps. Even our beloved Epiphany Messenger received some of the same abuse from both the GOOD and Bad Levites. (See E-10, pp. 585-594 and 645-646) “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master, and the servant as his Lord. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household?”—Matt. 10:24-25. (We-should not forget that it was the ‘cleansed’ religious leaders of our Lord’s Day who made such charges against Him—See Matt. 12:24) Brother Johnson has this to say about such:

“Whenever religious errorists and frauds cannot meet the exposures of their false doctrines or evil practices by argument, Satan fills their mouths with false and malicious slanders against their exposers.... this propaganda being united with oral warning not to read our writings” (just as R. G. Jolly and his companions in conspiracy have been doing with us—JJH). This is in accord with the Apostle’s prophecy in 2 Pet. 2:2: “And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of.”

“Do you therefore, Beloved, being forewarned, be on your guard, lest being led away by the deceit of the Lawless, you should fall from your own stability; but grow in Favor and Knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and for the Day of the Age.” (2 Pet. 3:17-18, Dia.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle,

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Mr. Hoefle: I acknowledge with many thanks receipt of your various publications and the book which you so kindly sent me. Being Interested in all published material dealing with the Christian attitude to the Jewish Restoration, I appreciate indeed this material.

Yours sincerely, ------- (JERUSALEM)

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

Dear Dear Brother Hoefle; Greetings in our dear Redeemer’s Name! Your last letter was received with much appreciation and thanks. I have received the two papers – Sept. and October – they are indeed great! On page 102 of the book entitled “Let God Be True,” reading from par. 1, Who is Ransomed? The man Adam is not Included in those ransomed. Why not? Because he was a willful sinner – was justly sentenced to death, and died – and God would not reverse His Just judgment and give Adam life!..... Such is the teachings of “The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society” – a complete denial of the Ransom....

But these Ransom-deniers did not come to such a conclusion at one bound. It was by putting aside one bit of Truth and replacing it with the false – and by perversion of certain Scriptures, and a wrong condition of heart. And so if the leader of the LHMM continues to pervert the Star Members’ writings, and continues to offer “strange fire” (false doctrine), I fear in the long run he will also deny the Ransom completely.

I am out of tracts. Please send us the specified ones for our Special Effort in antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle...... A short biography of my life follows:

Born October 15, 1903 – symbolized consecration August 1922. After recog­nizing that the Watch Tower in 1925 was going in for teaching error and malpractices, I there and then withdrew from them. It was in 1932 that some one sent my name to Brother Johnson – and from that time I came to understand the Epiphany Truth – which I then accepted. Now since Brother Johnson’s demise, again I have had to withdraw ­this time from the LHMM in 1962 – because the leader began his teaching of error and malpractices.

As I was writing this letter I received your letter of August 9. Thanks for the books that are on the way to me. All the dear ones this way ask me to send their Christian love to you, Sister Hoefle and the dear brethren with you – and ask that you remember them in your prayers, even as they remember you in their prayers.

Your brother by the Lord’s Grace ------- (TRINIDAD)

NO. 136: THE WHOLE ARMOR OF GOD

No. 136

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

On p. 52 of this July-August Present Truth is an article, headed as above. The first page is excellent, because it embraces the thoughts of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. So. it should be good – and it is! But after the introduc­tion, the thoughts of R. G. Jolly appear (who continues to assert himself as though he were the equal of the Star Members, and actually a ‘parallel’ of That Servant); and with his thoughts comes the usual bedlam of perversions, half truths, and no truths at all on pertinent points in it.

His focal point in three pages of this paper is his attempt to justify his own evils by completely ignoring his own sins, as he attempts to manufacture complaints against certain “rebellious Youthful Worthy leaders.” In this answer, however, we speak only for JJH. And as R. G. Jolly attempts to write us down, he makes equally extended effort to write himself UP. Here again he shows himself to be a true “cousin” to J. W. Krewson, who also has informed us of his superior standing. And, as we have already written regarding J. W. Krewson, we now also declare of R. G. Jolly: None of us would ever recognize what a great person he is if he himself didn’t tell us about it. Like the man from Yale – You can always tell a man from Yale, but you can’t tell him much!

R. G. Jolly deprecates the fact that we have been exposing his sins of teaching and practice. And for good reason does he make his attempt! Our clear and incisive refutations of his errors have been HURTING him – hurting him badly; so much so that the only answer left to him is the contention that we are “out of order” in our criticisms of him. Thus he shouts, “Rebellious – Ambitious Power-grasper ­Reprobate,” etc. But, as he attempts to offer his “profusion of words” for him­self, why does he not make a similar case for his kinsmen – the Great Company leaders in other parts of Babylon – especially in Little Babylon? Has he convinced any of these leaders that they are part of his ‘higher’ (Great Company) class? But here he is strangely silent. Why? This forces us to ask some questions. Is he approving of the other crown-lost leaders in Babylon (Big and Little)? And would he force silence on the Youthful Worthies who may be getting their eyes opened to the “abominations that are done there”? And did R. G. Jolly denounce the Youth­ful Worthies who openly opposed JFR in his revolutionisms? As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, “Half truths are more misleading than whole errors, as the course of every erroneous system proves.” Of course, he’ll probably keep silent on all this – just as he has done on so many other refutations we have presented against him. The main annihilative refutations that have discomfited him so much are the quotations from That Servant and The Epiphany Messenger which set to naught his “system of error” since the demise of Brother Johnson. Would any one clear in the Truth contend that attacking error with the Messengers’ truth-teachings would be ‘out of order’?

But, regardless of what he says, here’s Brother Johnson’s opinion in E-4:446: “Question: Are the Youthful Worthies to point out the errors and wrongs of Azazel’s Antitypical Goat? Answer: Certainly they are not to resist the revolutionism of the Great Company – leading the Goat to the Gate of the Court – in the same sense in which the Priesthood do this, for such is exclusively antitypical Aaron’s work. However, as friends of God and of His Truth and Righteousness, they are to disapprove of all violations of Truth and Righteousness: but in the exercise of the disapproval they are to remember that the Great Company, in God’s esteem, is a higher class than they.”

When the Ancient Worthies denounced the evils of their ‘superiors’(?), we know they received some of the same complaints of a ‘lower’ class interfering with their evils – as instance Jer. 18:18: “Then said they, Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words.” (Also see Jer. 18:22; 41:7; 37:15) And, of those Youthful Worthies in the various groups who are following R. G. Jolly’s prescription of subservience to his “higher class,” Brother Johnson says this (E-4:442):

“Before the Youthful Worthies will be worthy of association with the Ancient Worthies they will have to obtain a good report for faith and obedience, and to the extent that their cleaving to the Levitical divisions implies sympathy with Levitical ways, to that extent they will have to cleanse themselves, if they would be the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies. And this the ultimately faithful among them will do.... We expect to see a cleansing setting in to make them worthy.”

But the only way this “cleansing” can occur is for those needing cleansing to embrace the Truth and renounce the errors their “higher class” leaders have taught them. They must also overcome Clericalism and Sectarianism. (See E-5, pp. 226-29)

So often have we heard R. G. Jolly orate from the platform: “I love my dear Youthful Worthy brethren!” But it seems he doesn’t love them quite enough to offer them a well-rounded treatise on their present privileges and obligations! His “higher class” apparently is just not that high class! And his claim – in his present uncleansed condition – is well answered in Job 38:2 – “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” Note Brother Johnson’s comment on this in E-10:594:

“God charges that both the three bad Levite groups and the good Levites, the crown-losers in the Epiphany movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge.”

OUR OWN POSITION

Here we wish to make our own ambitions very clear: We do not want R. G. Jolly’s position; we wouldn’t accept it if it were offered to us. We consider our own position as somewhat analogous to Brother Johnson’s situation (although not a parallel, or offered as a prophecy) as set forth in Judges 9:7-15, where he relates the selection of the “bramble” (thistle, see margin) to rule over the Society, at which time they selected J. F. Rutherford – just as certain Levites now partisanly support R. G. Jolly; and note Brother Johnson’s comments about the selection (E-10:459):

“He by act told the brethren (although R. G. Jolly goes a little further here: He actually tells them – JJH) that they must not only accept, but be subject to him as controller, executive and manager, else destruction would go out from him against all who were leaders.”

When Brother Johnson gave us our Pilgrim appointment, he stressed the point that we were then privileged to teach any Ecclesia anywhere on earth if opportunity was presented; and he himself repeatedly gave us discourse opportunities at many general conventions to do that. Those assemblies always included some Saints, as well as some of R. G. Jolly’s “higher class”; but now that he has eliminated the Saints by his crafty “sleight-of-hand,” he would have his readers believe they should also eliminate JJH, too, which he himself is doing his best to accomplish. But his “best” has not been sufficient to do this. We state with considerable satisfaction that those who have been attracted to our writings are always those who were rated among the best brethren in character prior to 1950. We mention specifically Brother Roach (the very same brother a pilgrim – by R. G. Jolly’s appointment – praised so highly at a Philadelphia Convention after his trip to Trinidad – said he was so clear on the Truth, etc., with which we heartily agreed), long-time representative of Brother Johnson in Trinidad; Sister Condell of Jamaica; Brother Baxendale of England; Brother Wells of Winston-Salem, N. C.; Brother Price of Kansas; Sr. Oldham of California; Brother Dunnagan of Florida; and Brother Alger of Detroit. We enumerate these publicly because they are all dead, but we could name quite a few others who are still living – all of them among the most loved and respected in the Epiphany Movement for their fine character qualities and spiritual discernment; and we believe those of our readers who knew them will agree with the compliment we now pay them (just as the brother praised Brother Roach from the Conven­tion platform in Philadelphia). And we know also that R. G. Jolly himself held many of them in high esteem until they began to reject his sins of teaching and practice, as we also have done.

We consider our appointment as General Elder in the General Church as valid today as it was when Brother Johnson gave It to us – but with greater responsibilities toward our brethren; and we are acutely conscious of Brother Johnson’s loving obser­vation in his letter that accompanied that appointment; namely:

“You can be assured that in this service you will have the special opposition of the adversary (Azazel! – JJH) and those who have his spirit, and thus you will have severer trials. On the other hand, remember the Lord is on our side and will give you special help and blessings, if you faithfully use your privileges of service.”

THE “HIGHER CLASS”

R. G. Jolly attempts to emphasize, extol and exalt his “higher class” in exact manner as JFR attempted the same for “The Channel”; and the methods of both crown-lost leaders bear the label of identical twins. When JFR’s own evils forced Brother Johnson into a protest which he could not refrain from expressing if he would be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren,” the former then issued his “Harvest Siftings” – a work of Satan if there ever was one. And in our own case – ­When information came to us from many sources that R. G. Jolly was engaged in a “whispering campaign” of slander against us – and we registered a protest – he then proceeded to cancel our pilgrim status with the LHMM, and to disfellowship us. We did not disfellowship him; he disfellow­shiped us; and his course throughout ­in exact duplication of JFR’s conduct toward Brother Johnson – gives eloquent testimony of his “higher class.” We evaluate it accordingly.

Another illustration of his “higher class” is recorded by Brother Johnson in E-10:585:

“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.”

Clearly enough, R. G. Jolly’s “higher class” hallucination had him believing then that he was even superior to Brother Johnson – just as he also even tried to “gain control of J..... by a resolution, so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect.” (See E-10:646, top)

As we ponder the above actions by R. G. Jolly – the self-admitted leader of the “higher class” – we can but utter the fervent prayer: Lord, deliver us from this “higher class”; may we never stoop so low! And we now say to R. G. Jolly, “Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” (Jab-2:18) But, while we are waiting for his response, we now quote some more from Brother Johnson (E-4:221,222):

“Satan is the most cunning being in the Universe. Hence, among others he seeks to enlist on his side (“one goat for Azazel” – Lev. 16:8 – JJH) those who like him are more or less cunning. In working against the Truth servants he always studies how best to overthrow their influence (such as by the “whispering campaign” against Brother Johnson and the penniless cancerous aged Youthful Worthy widow – and the “whispering campaign” conducted against us – JJH)..... If, therefore, he can represent a servant of the Truth as an errorist or a madman, or a sinner, or an offender against society, he will do so, whether the charges are true or false.... Whenever religious errorists and frauds cannot meet the exposures of their false doctrines or evil practices by argument, Satan fills their mouths with false and malicious slanders against their exposers.”

And Brother Johnson counsels the course we should follow toward such (E-4:130):

“Question: – Should one cooperate in the work toward Azazel’s Goat if not certain that he is in the Body of Christ?

“Answer: - It is proper to help in the work toward Azazel’s Goat, if one is consecrated and knows that such work is in the Divine order. For such should always resist revolutionism and withdraw fellowship from revolution­ists, and brotherly help and favor from willful revolutionists.... Even a cleansed Levite should properly resist the revolutionism of Azazel’s Goat.”

THE HAVENS CASE, ETC.

As for our own “class,” we have never made comment about it over the years unless it was necessary to offer a defense of our ministry and against the slanders and abuses of those in the clutches of Azazel; and that is the only reason we now give some further details. When Sister Havens, of Chicago, died, leaving 25% of her estate to Brother Johnson, her daughter attempted to set aside the will, charg­ing undue influence, etc. It was the evidence we provided in that case that enabled Brother Johnson’s attorney to go into Court and gain a favorable verdict in less than two hours of contest. The amount involved was about $9,000. Some thirty years ago, when we provided the money to purchase the building on Snyder Ave., Philadelphia, which housed Brother Johnson and the LHMM until Brother Johnson’s death, no one ever learned of it from us; it was Brother Johnson himself who informed a number of brethren about it, and it became generally known.

In addition to that gift, we subsequently held a mortgage for $35,000 on all the assets possessed by the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, which mortgage was eventually canceled for One Dollar and other valuable considerations. This is a matter of record in the Court House at Philadelphia. The “other valuable consider­ations” comprised the good will we held toward Brother Johnson for his admirable and honorable character, and for the superb and unsullied Truth he gave us so nobly and sacrificingly during his lifetime. Therefore, we now call upon the brethren everywhere to compare the “class” of JJH with the “class” of R. G. Jolly, as recorded in the writings of the Epiphany Messenger. Let the record speak for itself; and let each individual be judged by his own decision in this matter. “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had Sin; but now they have no Excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22 – Diaglott) May we never be so devoid of love for the Lord, the Truth and “love for the brethren” to follow such an one in his “path of error,” Brother Russell says this of such:

“St. James presses his point and endeavors to awaken some who have a measure of faith..... He asks what profit there would be for us to say that we have faith, if we do not have works to correspond – to attest the faith, however imperfect the works would be. He asks (R.V.), ‘Can that faith save him?’ We answer, No. As St. Paul declares, It is the faith that works by love that counts....... Illustrating this point he suggests that to tell a poor brother of our faith that God will help him and to send him away without relief, when it is within our power to relieve him, would not be such a faith God would approve. It would rather signify that we had deceived our own selves. It would profit us nothing.”

And any one who has been guilty of such conduct not only ‘deceives himself,’ but he also seeks to deceive others when he professes that all his consecrated life he has had “the joy of close fellowship with Him and with my Lord Jesus.” We ask, Can any one honestly make such claims after being manifested the main opponent of the Lord’s Mouthpiece, and a revolutionist against God’s arrange­ments? Yes, one who is in Azazel’s clutches can! He can also tell us about his ‘higher’ class. “The Pharisee standing by himself, prayed thus: 0 God, I thank thee, That I am not like other men, –Rapacious, Unjust, Dissolute, or even like This Tribute-taker.” (Luke 18:11 – Dia. – Also see Luke 18:13-14, Dia.)

R. G. Jolly’s article, “The Whole Armor of God” is a fit companion for J. F. Rutherford’s “Methods of Deceit.” It was he who was leading the brethren into error by abandoning completely or perverting (Azazel means Perverter) the Parousia Truth – just as R. G. Jolly has been doing the same thing with both the Parousia and Epiphany Truth. We realize, of course, that this is serving its purpose, because the Epiphany is a time for “MAKING MANIFEST the counsels of hearts”; and it will continue to a completion.

For now, however, we offer the observation that for several years after Brother Johnson’s death R. G. Jolly used us to teach his “higher class” in exact manner as Brother Johnson had done. During 1951, ‘52, and ‘53 R. G. Jolly invited us to offer discourses at various Conventions, with no hesitancy whatever on his part to the teaching we did. When we told him of our experience in refuting a member of Azazel’s Goat in another group, he was so delighted with our annihi­lation of the errors of this ‘higher class’ that he asked us to relate it to the brethren from the platform. This was in 1951 at the Labor Day Convention. His objection appears only since we have been exposing his own perversions and desertions of much Parousia and Epiphany Truth which he himself accepted and taught prior to 1950. Yet he is now crass enough to ask the question on p. 55, col. 2, par. 2: ‘‘Am I doubleminded, unstable, immature?” Well, St. James answers the question very clearly for R. G. Jolly, at least: “A doubleminded man (a crown­loser) Is unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:6-8)

The Apostle says more: “Let not that man think that he will receive anything from the Lord.” Here is a clear warning that we should not expect any advancing Truth from such “double minds”; rather, we should expect just the reverse – “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:8-1l) – so strong that the most of them are so misled by Azazel that they believe their mud splashes of error are “advancing Truth.” But to those of us who are awake to the true situation we offer the words of St. Paul: “Take heed diligently how you walk, not like ignorant persons, but as wise men.... understand what is the will of the Lord.” (Eph. 5:15-17, Dia.)

“Knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep... let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light (the Truth as given by the Star Members, and not the errors of “higher class” double minds – JJH).... Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 13:11-14)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Did Brother Johnson ever change his views on Tentative Justification before his death?

ANSWER: – No, he certainly did not. It is indeed quite a coincidence – quite a parallel of evil – that this same question should arise now after Brother Johnson’s death as also occurred after Brother Russell’s death. Shortly after 1916 the truth on Tentative Justification began distressingly to pinch the style of the errorists who Immediately appeared on the scene. It was perhaps the first major error that J. F. Rutherford presented; in fact, he began slyly and moderately to advance his “No Tentative Justification” theory already in 1917; and by 1920 he was boldly declaring that Tentative Justification is an “Impossible” thing. This led Brother Johnson to offer detailed refutation of the error – so much so that it eventually forced J. F. Rutherford to cast aside completely the entire book of Tabernacle Shadows.

And it is well that we stress here the great importance of that move. Tabernacle Shadows was among the first of the great Harvest truths to come to the Church through That Servant; It is basic for all Six Volumes of Scripture Studies, and for many of the articles that appeared in the Watch Tower during the Parousia period. Therefore, the rejection of that book tended to topple over the entire Harvest Truth structure. As a result The Witnesses today are so far away from the Truth we received through Brother Russell that he would no longer recognize their teachings as associated with what he presented during his life.

A mildly similar parallel of that great evil is being enacted now with those who are changing Brother Johnson’s views on Tentative Justification – contending (by act, if not by actual words) that we should now recognize Tentative Justifica­tion as Brother Johnson would view it if he were here. There is just no justification at all for such a viewpoint; the contention is merely another great hoax being perpetrated upon God’s people – the same as occurred back in 1917 (in order to sup­port their “strange fire”).

The main offender in this present debacle is R. G. Jolly, who, while he has not rejected Tentative Justification as such, now has it operating in the Camp. This view Is a direct contradiction of both Messengers an the subject – is a rejection of that Truth which he at one time ardently accepted and defended. And be it noted here that neither back there nor here has the erroneous view been sponsored by any among the Fully Faithful. Now, as then, the error comes through a Levite, a crown­loser – who at one time vigorously supported Brother Johnson in his views, just as J. F. Rutherford at one time gave strong support to the Harvest Truth given through Brother Russell. In proof of this we quote from a letter written by R. G. Jolly himself to Brother Johnson back in 1920 (when he was ardently attacking the JFR error – at a time when he was under the benevolent and restraining influence of the Epiphany Messenger):

“In the Court is shown what we term a Tentative Justification.... These steps of Tentative Justification in the Court..... To deny this doctrine would be to deny and to become confused on many Scriptures and to repudiate important features of Tabernacle Shadows (just as R. G. Jolly himself is now doing by moving Tentative Justification out into the Camp – JJH). How could any one approach the brazen altar, wash himself at the Laver... without first being in the Court, the place of Tentative Justification? (But R. G. Jolly now casts aside his own Truth on this question by putting his Campers Consecrated into the Camp where there is no Laver – JJH) Surely the Brazen Altar and the Laver were not taken into the Camp in order that those not tentatively justified might use them preparatory to making a consecration. (He properly claims here that all would have to use the Laver “preparatory to making a consecration” – but now changes his views on that: His Consecrated Campers can do so without washing – without the benefit of the Laver, as they walk R. G. Jolly’s “narrow way” in the Camp – JJH) What confusion J.F.R.’s denial of the doctrine of Tentative Justification brings to those who are gullible enough to accept it!...... But what consolation that the Very Elect shall be manifested as not being deceived.” (At that time – 1920 R. G. Jolly was an unmanifested crown-loser and had not been ejected from the Holy therefore was not then deceived. But now since he has been fully abandoned to Azazel, and no longer has the restraining hand of the Epiphany Messenger upon him, he not only “deceives himself,” he also seeks to deceive others – JJH)

Yes, everything R. G. Jolly wrote in that letter in 1920 Is just as true now as it was then – and our reason for reproducing it is to refute his own present errors; and his rejection of his own clear presentation of the subject simply reveals his present tragic condition, and “makes manifest” his “higher class.” No, Brother Johnson never changed his mind on what Brother Russell gave; nor would he change it if he were here with us today. The Truth for the Gospel Age is, and always will be, the Truth for the Gospel Age; and may we who still retain that Truth offer a prayer of thanks daily that we have not succumbed to “the pestilence that walketh in darkness.”

The distinct cleavage between Court and Camp is very clearly stated in E-11:489: “They (Israelites – typical and antitypical – JJH) worked on the righteousness of Christ, which to the antitypical Campers is a wall of unbelief, and to the antitypical Priests and Levites is a wall of faith (hangings of the Court, Ex. 35:17).”

We need ask ourselves only one simple question here: Is the Epiphany Taber­nacle still in operation? If it is, then the above statement is just as pertinent and true today as it was in 1948, when Volume 11 was published; and any attempt to pervert it is rank revolutionism against this clear Parousia and Epiphany Truth. And such revo­lutionism persisted in is certain proof that such perverters are bad Levites, regard­less of what their standing may once have been. All crown-losers once had a standing in the Holy, which they lost when manifested as gross and persistent revolutionists. The attempt now by R. G. Jolly to change the above, and label his change as “advanc­ing Truth” is an exact parallel to J. F. Rutherford’s attempt to change Brother Russell’s clear teaching on Tentative Justification – in both cases simply a mud­splash of error! “Let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord” – except the “strong delusion” promised to those who do violence to the Star Members’ teachings (2 Thes. 2:8-11), such as revolutionizing and perverting the significance of the Court and Camp, etc.

It is no pleasure to us, but rather with much sorrow, that we find it our unpleasant duty to again call attention to R. G. Jolly’s past record in our answer to his Present Truth (?); nor would we do this if his present course did not ‘attest’ to the fact that he has not forsaken his evil practices. Although some of the brethren are ‘following in his footsteps’ because of their kindred spirit with him, there are others who are deceived and deluded by his claims of ‘higher class’ ­just as there were many deceived and deluded by J. F. Rutherford’s loud boasts of superiority over Brother Johnson, the faithful servant who was exposing him and his sins of teaching and practice. “For necessity is laid upon me” (See 1 Cor. 9:16-l8) if we would be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. Nor did we hesitate to resist and forsake J. F. Rutherford’s ‘higher’ class when we became aware of his gross revolutionisms and perversions of Parousia Truth. The Lord then rewarded us with Epiphany Truth. Nor do the representatives of this ‘higher’ class intimidate us now into submitting to their errors.

We now exhort our brethren to resist “the fear of man (that) bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe.” (Prov. 29:25) Be strong in the Lord and the power of His might – “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Tim. 1:7)

NO. 135: A RANSOM FOR ALL - "TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME"

No. 135

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

“God desires all men to be saved, and to come to an accurate knowledge of the Truth.... the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom in behalf of all – the testi­mony in its own seasons.” (I Tim. 2:4-6, Dia.) It was not so very long after St. Paul died that the Truth on this text was first perverted by the crown-lost leaders of that time, and then completely lost – just as was also the Truth on the “resti­tution of all things” as given by St. Peter in Acts 3:21-23. So completely were these truths lost that the wiser of the Interim Preachers ignored them altogether – ­just kept silent; it was by far the safer and more discreet policy. But, when the “due time” came for the Harvest Truth to be proclaimed, Brother Russell made crystal clear the Apostles' words, and explained the “Ransom for all” so ably that an unbiased child could understand it. However, since his death a situation has arisen similar to the one after St. Paul's death: The clear truth on the Ransom has once more become dim to some, confusing to others, perverted or completely set aside by many of the crown-lost leaders – particularly on the “testimony in its own seasons.”

It is not our intention to analyze all the variations that have arisen since 1916, and we shall make rather brief comment only on the two extremes of “the pestilence that now walketh in darkness.” (Psa. 91:6) The first of these extremes prompted detailed and prolonged discussion in the Present Truth when Frederick Robison (one of the eight Society leaders who was sent to Atlanta penitentiary in 1918) left the Society and allied himself with Concordant-Versionism four or five years after Brother Russell's death. This system of error proclaims the belief of Universal Salvation – with even the Devil and his angels to be eventually saved. One of their 'strong' (?) points is that no spirit being or descendant of Adam can be lost, as that would mean that God suffers loss; and this, they say, is impossible, because God is omnipotent, He cannot fail in anything; and He would be failing if He failed to rescue from the meshes of sin those beings now involved in it. And this flimsy argument has ensnared a goodly number of the shallow, the unlearned, and the Sinners (crown-losers). The simple answer to them is that God had said of Adam, “Dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Therefore, when Adam returned to “dust” 930 years after his creation, God had not lost anything; He had exactly what He had when He started – a certain quantity of dust. There are a number of very clear and convincing Scriptures to refute Universalism, but these are completely ignored by the believers of this “pestilence.” We have had ex­tended correspondence with some of them, but they cling tenaciously to the false, and reject just as tenaciously the true. Yes, “Wisdom is justified of all her children.”

To make this presentation comprehensive and clear we believe it is in order to advance the query, “From what does God desire all men to be saved?” The plain im­plication of salvation is that man now occupies some adverse position, from which it is desirable to free him. St. Paul also answers this point: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men.” (Rom. 5:12) Clearly enough, all of us came under the death sentence through no cause of our own; it was an inheritance passed on to us because of what “one man” did in the Garden of Eden; and it is this sentence that Cod desires to nullify through the vicarious atonement of one other man – The Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a Ransom for all. This, then, will be the ultimate accomplishment; but there is just no hint at all here that, once that sentence is set aside, it cannot once more be repeated. In fact, the condition of each man – after the pardon of this death sentence – will have the same legal significance as a jail-bird of our day who has been pardoned. He may then select for himself which way he will go ­either back to further crime, or a resolve to sin against society no more. If he chooses the latter, the prison walls have no more terror for him; he is free to enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as avowed to every law-abiding citizen by our Constitution. And in identical fashion every man, as an individual, will also be free to “choose life that he may live” after he has been saved from his present inherited sentence of death. “I will redeem them from death; I will ransom them from the power of the grave.” (Hos. 13:14) However, this will be a matter of choice, which the “sheep” will accept, but which the “goats” will reject.

THE OTHER EXTREME

The antitheses of the Universalism teaching is the one now being promulgated by the Jehovah's Witnesses; namely, Adam will have no further opportunity for salvation – that he is not included in the “all men” of our caption text – that St. Paul did not know whereof he spoke when he said “God desires all men to come to an accurate knowledge of the Truth.” And this same situation will apply, they say, to millions and millions of others – particularly those of this our day who refuse their ideas of “an accurate knowledge of the Truth.” Of course, it does not require much conversation with the great bulk of their members to learn that they themselves are sorely lacking in “an accurate knowledge of the Truth,” so it is certainly not just cynicism when we inquire how such people can pass on to others “an accurate knowledge of the Truth” when they do not have it themselves. Of course, their lack of such “accurate knowledge” can be charged against the leaders of that organization, because the majority of their “large crowd” never received the Truth as taught by Pastor Russell. It is their leaders (of error) who will receive the greater condemnation. (See James 3:1)

In this, as well as the first-mentioned extreme – and in all the intermediate variations of error on this subject – we emphasize that such teachings are a direct denial of the Ransom, even though such teachers may emphatically deny such guilt. But let us notice there was only one man involved in the original sin – just as there is only one man involved in the Ransom from that sin. These two must be the exact equivalent of each other if logic is to apply at all, because the Greek anti­lutron (Ransom) means a perfect duplicate, an exact equivalent. And Adam has been the only man ever to live on this earth who was ever the exact duplicate of the man Jesus when He presented Himself for baptism at Jordan. At that time He was 30 years of age (the Jewish and Biblical age of maturity); and He was the exact counterpart of Adam in Eden when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” And, if this be true, Jesus could not possibly offer a true Ransom – a true equivalent – for the rest of us, because none of us are perfect; therefore, Jesus would be paying more than an anti-lutron for any of us – more than a corresponding price. Our Ransom comes only as it is handed on to us through Adam – just as our inherited sin was handed on to us through Adam. ''As by the offense of one (Adam) judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” (Rom. 5:18) Therefore, we repeat that Universalism, and the rejection of Adam in the redemptive process, are both direct denials of the Ransom – wittingly or unwittingly, as the case may be. It does not require great intelligence to realize that Adam could not possibly have received “Justification to life” through Jesus, when Jesus did not appear on this earth as the “Ransom (cor­responding price) for all” until some three thousand years after Adam had entered the tomb. In passing, we stress that the Ransom for all has been efficacious only for the Elect and the prospective Elect during this Age – this Gospel (good news) Age, which is still with us, and will continue to be with us for yet some years ­until the finished picture of this Epiphany period. More on this later.

THE MAY 1966 BIBLE STANDARD

The May Bible Standard in its treatise of the Ransom is very good, and we offer no criticism of it – because it is the Truth as taught by both Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. However, it should not be overlooked that some of the worst renegades of this Parousia-Epiphany period have retained enough of “Present Truth” (2 Pet. 1:12) to give them a certain appearance of respectability. If this were not true, then nobody would be deceived by them or their systems of error. Over the years it has come to us a number of times that certain preachers admit privately to a close scrutiny of the Six Volumes of Scripture Studies (although we have never heard one of them make such public admission); and they use much of the Truth in those books, palming it off as their own, as they mix into it much of their own error. In due course we may elaborate on some of these.

We believe it well that we consider St. Paul's words that “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” This is a technique he adopted about two hundred years ago – when he began to realize a change in tactics became necessary. And he has not only done this in the religious world, but he is also doing it in the political and civic circles. Recently we were much impressed by a newspaper item along this line, some of which we quote:

“Yes, the Soviet Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but that is part of your problem. You use good words and then endow them with your own meanings. The Communists deal in slogans as bootleggers deal in faked spirits; and the more innocent the customer, the more easily he becomes a victim of the ideological hooch sold under the trademark of Peace, Democracy, Progress, or what you will.... While freedom may be given verbal praise in Russia.... freedom there is just a hollow phrase.”

In identical fashion to the foregoing, many leaders in Little Babylon today make loud profession of “brotherly love,” all the while they “cast out” their brethren (Isa. 66:5); and make loud profession of harmony with the teachings of That Servant (Brother Russell) – “only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach” (Isa. 4:1) – let us also parade as “angels of light.” And, when any of these reproduce any of the superb articles of Brother Russell or Brother Johnson, let none reach hasty conclusion that the publishers are in that same elect company with those brethren, or that they are even in full heart harmony with the general system of doctrine and symmetry of interpretation which they presented. However, we do not charge the Editor of the Bible Standard with these tactics in his presenta­tion of the Ransom in his May paper. As we have said, it is the Truth and we heartily subscribe to that Truth; and because it is the Truth, we now offer some supplementary attacks on Ransom errors that we feel meet our present-day needs. The Standard article attacks the gross errors so prevalent in our day, but doesn't include the subtle errors that are being promulgated, which just as surely impinge against the Ransom as do these gross errors – and many times have a more evil influence upon some of our brethren who would not be ensnared by the grosser errors. We especially refer to those groups who now teach consecrated classes for this Age other than the Elect – a gross repudiation of both Messengers' teachings thereon – that all conse­crators between the Ages (after spirit-begettal is no longer available, and before the Highway of Holiness is opened) will share with the Ancient Worthies in honor and in service – if faithful to their consecrations while sin is in the ascendancy. Of course, the Editor of the Bible Standard couldn't attack others for such deflec­tions and impingement against the Ransom when he himself has a similar class.

Thus, in that May Bible Standard the Editor does say that the “large multitude” is a spiritual class, as he makes general attack upon the errors of the Witnesses; yet he fails completely to expose the fallacy of that non-existent class of Jona­dabs because he himself has an almost identical twin in his Consecrated Campers. And, he who lives in a glass house must hesitate to throw stones. Also, in some respects at least, his Consecrated Camper are even more ridiculous than the Witnesses' Jonadabs. He proposes for his non-existent Class a tentative justifi­cation in the Camp, which in turn forces him to have Christ divided – part of His merit in the Court, and part in the Camp. And, since he also admits that his Campers are strictly Restitutionists, and not included in the real Elect Classes of this Gospel Age, he once more has Christ “divided” – part of His merit applying now an behalf of the Elect “faith” classes, and part of it now applying to his Mediatorial-Age “works” class. It seems these two partners in error have com­pletely forgotten Jesus' words, “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” Just where is Jesus to be found in the Tabernacle Camp? And, if the Witnesses' “large multitude” has no present faith justification, what possible standing can they then have before God? “Mine own righteousness is as filthy rags.” (Isa. 64:6)

However, by way of encouragement to those “dedicated” Witnesses who have accepted their position “in sincerity and in Truth,” and who are honestly trying to abide by the “dedication” they have made of themselves to serve the Lord, it may eventually be found that they all along have had that “righteousness that cometh of faith in Jesus” – that they do have a faith justification, even though they have been unaware of It. Of those, the scales will eventually drop from their eyes ­just as will be true of Campers Consecrated or Quasi-elect Consecrated who came in with honesty of purpose. Such persistent and sincere ones will eventually awake to a realization that they have been standing in the Court right along, and will be rewarded in honor and service with the Ancient Worthies, just as That Servant and The Epiphany Messenger have taught us regarding those who consecrate between the Ages – before Restitution sets in. Then they will be able to do an acceptable work to God – having an acceptable standing in THE RANSOM as applied to this Age of Faith.

Of course, we should not forget that antitypical Saul (the crown-lost leaders we see all about us) cannot offer clear and complete refutation of the errors of their kinsmen so long as their own skirts have not been cleansed from the defiling errors (“the pestilence that walketh in darkness” of this Epiphany night) that now beset them. This is particularly true of the Editor of the Bible Standard, who presently is engulfed in such a quagmire of false doctrine (“strange fire”) with his own Campers Consecrated that he cannot offer the annihilative Scriptural refu­tation of Jonadabs – or the “large multitude,” however you wish to express it – that the error deserves. Prior to 1950, when he still embraced the clear Parousia and Epiphany Truth on the Elect and the Non-elect, he was quite forceful in his attacks on the non-existent Jonadabs, as they were then described in the Present Truth ­the same magazine he continues to designate as Present Truth of which he is now also editor. It is this omission in the May Bible Standard that has motivated us to supplement his Ransom treatise therein.

Especially do we direct attention to page 36, col. 2, par. 1, where the elect and the non-elect are clearly and correctly delineated. We are in complete accord with this paragraph because it, too, is exactly as Brother Russell has given it to us. But, inasmuch as the Editor is making a frontal attack upon the Jehovah's Witnesses, why does he not proceed to prove why his statement regarding the “great multitude” is correct, and that the Witnesses' contention concerning this class is incorrect? Of course, the real reason is that the Editor himself has invented a counterpart class of the Witnesses' false “large multitude,” so he dare not expose their ridiculous teaching without exposing himself to similar ridicule. We have examined this subject in detail in our papers No. 130 and 131 (free upon request); but we stress once again that our analysis is not primarily concerned with the Bible Standard's presentation of the Ransom (with which we ourselves concur), but our fault is found with the Editor for his glaring failures in not giving full value to the “gold” in his hand. Actually the Editor himself does not concur with his published statements cited therein! If he did so, we would have no cause at all to present this paper; but his own invention of a non­existent Restitutionist (“works”) class in this “faith” Age is an error in some respects more vile than the Witnesses' Jonadabs or “large crowd”; it is a vitia­tion and denial of the Ransom – whether he is aware of it or not. Christ's merit is on embargo for the Elect and in the Court, and cannot be divided.

Perhaps it is well to note here, too, that any who are at all familiar with Parousia Truth have little difficulty in recognizing the Witnesses' denial of the Ransom, as they place Adam, the Scribes and Pharisees, and countless others in the second death. But it is the subtle errors, such as Campers Consecrated, the tools of the sixth Slaughter-weapon man that are creating havoc among erstwhile adherents to the sober teachings of That Servant. But dividing Christ's merit between Restitutionists now in this “faith” Age and Restitutionists later on dur­ing the “works” dispensation is just as much a denial of the Ransom as the Witnesses' “large crowd” – and decidedly more culpable because it has been done against much greater light.

Note the clear Parousia teaching on this point, as given on page 7 of the Foreword in Volume 5, October 1, 1916 (one of the last expressions by That Servant on the matter):

“This Imputation of the merit of His sacrifice to the Church (to the Little Flock and the Great Company – JJH) by Jesus might be likened to a mortgage, or an encumbrance, upon the Ransom-sacrifice, which would hinder it from being applied to the world (of which Campers Consecrated are a part – JJH) until its application to the Church shall be completed.”

At one time – before the Epiphany Messenger's demise – The Standard Editor believed the above statement by the Parousia Messenger; and this is just one more Parousia and Epiphany Truth against which he is now revolutionizing.

As we have already stated, the May article is certainly excellent in every­thing it says so far as it goes; but this omission arouses our pity for this member of antitypical Saul – much as our sympathy also is extended to typical King Saul. “When thou was little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee King over Israel?” (I Sam. 15:17) Saul had come from the smallest tribe in Israel, so “little in his own sight” that he “hid himself among the stuff” (1 Sam. 10:22) when the people would make him their king. Thus, he was a man who came from nothing, arose to the highest honor in a great nation, then relapsed into ignominious defeat, and death, and the loss of Israel's throne for his posterity – back once more to nothing. Indeed, a tale of deep tragedy! As we write this, it is our sincere hope and prayer that the Bible Standard's Editor may not continue “in his path of error” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.) to the full fatality experienced by King Saul; and we now quote from his statement concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses, which applies in full detail about him: “While we commend them (him) for the Scripturally supported truths that they (he) present, we decry their (his) many errors, some of which are against the cardinal doctrines of God's Word.”

It should be emphasized here that the Bible Standard Editor is now himself grossly and persistently perverting a “cardinal doctrine of God's word” as he REVOLUTIONIZES against vital Truths he once accepted, upheld and defended – before the Epiphany Messenger's demise in 1950 – as he attacked the Witnesses' “Strange Fire” of Great Crowd, or Jonadabs, and then upheld Tentative Justification in the Court. Now he himself perverts the doctrine of tentative justification, as he extends it to the Camp – outside the linen curtain of Christ's Righteousness.

When we “contend for the faith” on the Court, the Camp and Tentative Justifi­cation, we are “contending for the faith once delivered to the saints” – the truth as taught by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson: They both repeatedly em­phasized in very definite manner that the Gospel-Age tentative justification is a “faith” justification – that It will cease to operate when the faith classes (the elect) no longer need it (at the end of their course); that it cannot possibly operate when the “works” dispensation is inaugurated, because Christ's merit will then be applied in its entirety – in a finality that will consume all of it in its application for the New Covenant. In this it differs from its use now in this faith dispensation, because in no case has it ever been applied in its entirety for any individual, only enough of it being used to supply the deficiency of the respective recipients who come under it. And in each and every case when it has been applied in this faith dispensation it is eventually returned to its depository (in the hands of the Heavenly Father), so that the full completion of this faith Age will find Christ's merit in exactly the same condition as it was when He proclaimed on the cross, “Father, into thy hands I commend (deposit) my spirit.” This then will leave no inhibitions of any kind for its use in inaugurating the New Covenant. And, as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson have both stressed repeatedly: If we keep clear on the doctrine of Justification in its relation to the Ransom, we are not likely to depart from “Present Truth.” Our own experience corroborates this. Of the many letters we receive almost all of the writers still show a sound retention of Parousia Truth if they are still clear on the doctrines of Justifica­tion and the Ransom – the Court and the Camp.

Many letters and reports come to us from widely-separated localities (England, Poland, Trinidad and the U.S.) that many of the brethren in the LHMM do not accept or teach his Campers Consecrated “strange fire”; and we urge all who have a sympa­thetic interest in the Editor's eternal welfare to inform him of their disagreement with this “pestilence that walketh in darkness.” We believe that would be a major kindness to him on their part. “My Brethren, if any one among you wander from the Truth, and some one turn him back; know you That He who turns back a Sinner from his Path of Error, will save his Soul from Death, and will cover a Multitude of Sins.” (Jas. 5:19-20, Dia. – See Berean Comment)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: Will you please send me some more tracts.... and send extra, as I am still doing Sister ------- territory. She is home again and getting better.

Yours In the Master's Service, Sister ------- (CONN.)

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: Just a line to thank you for your letter and the two circulars. They are good, and I believe right. I hope you are both well and safe in His care. We are very well and trusting the Lord for the future knowing all will be well. Thank you for you love and care . Lovingly, Sister ------- (CONN.)

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

Our Beloved Brother Hoefle: Loving greetings in the name of our dear Redeemer!

Sister and I celebrated the Memorial of our Lord's death with ------- The Lord blessed our fellowship one with another. Sister ------- ­appreciated having the meeting in her home – “the upper room,” for she has a flat in a big story building. We spent a pleasant day at the home of Sister ------- and also at the home of Sister ------- In the Lord's providences, we trust that these sisters will be able to visit us during the next few months, when we can renew our fellowship together – for we all love Parousia and Epiphany teachings and the work you are doing in upholding the Star Members' teachings that are basic in understand­ing facts and events.

Our visit to Beaumaris Anglesey was appreciated by Brother and Sister -------. Every day we had the Manna and Scriptures together and discussed various doctrines..... They hope to visit us also. We found Brother and Sister ------- keen to talk on Truth matters, and admitting they could not see eye to eye on some of the LHMM teachings particularly their teaching on “Campers Consecrated.” Your article on the “Six Saved Classes” was timely – and we trust would be very beneficial to them. Surely, some of our deluded brethren will awake to the true situation and thank the Lord for taking the scales off their eyes for the Truth as we have it today. As the Psalmist says, “More to be desired are they than gold.” (Psalm 19:9,10)

We thank the Lord for your love and all the sacrifices you have made for the Truth. One day a rich harvest will be yours and we will all rejoice in singing the praises of the Lord more fully.

We know you remember us in prayers, as we are glad to remember you. He will give you all the needed grace and strength – and it is to those who “endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” (There is something to endure!) God bless you and all with you and dear Sister Hoefle. Hymn 202.

Yours in His Grace and Service – Bro. & Sr. ------- (ENGLAND)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian greetings!

This is a request I'm sure you will like to do. Enclosed is a donation to pay for postage, envelopes, etc., on some copies of the July 1, 1966 issue of “The Time of the End” Please send to ------- I'm sure they would enjoy all issues that are so true and in reference to the Studies in the Scriptures, as they don't have Brother Johnson's – and only know of RGJ from Sister ------- While she was living she always helped them on Pastor's studies...... Also send me three copies of this issue. I've read and re-read twice, and it is a wonderful work to issue at this time......

With much Christian love, Sister------- (CALIFORNIA)

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

Dear Brother in Christ: Your article, “The Tine of the End” just came in my mail and was read with much interest. Also a packet of liter­ature came from you some time ago which I have failed to acknowledge before. I assume you found my name in connection with a letter published....... several months ago,

As I had been wondering just what your background was, this latest suggests to me that you are an outgrowth of the work of Pastor C. T. Russell. There has always been a warm spot in my heart for Brother Russell. Early in the century my mother became interested in his excellent Studies and stocked the home with his books, The Divine Plan of the Ages,” etc. Although very young I read these books with extreme interest and they have had tremendous influence upon my whole life. They stimulated especially the study of Chronology, since I loved mathematics.

I would like very much to meet you and discuss these things with you. There is so much that writing letters could not cover. If you can call on me, please let me know so I can give you details on how to get here. If you would like me to drive up there, you might tell me how to reach your place and when would be most conven­ient for you.

I like the humble spirit of your writings and therefore believe we can tolerate each other, even though we may find many things on which we differ. I feel sure there will be many things on which we can agree. Certainly it will do brethren much good to get together, which is something my family and I miss very much, and pray for to soon come to pass for all the brethren. Will be looking forward with much hope­ful anticipation for your reply. Sincerely in the Blessed Hope, Bro ------- (FLORIDA)

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

As was the custom with Brother Johnson, we designate Sunday, October 23 through Sunday, November 13 for our Fall Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. Please order the pertinent literature in time for participation in this good work (free, postage prepaid). Antitypical Zebah (Eternal Torment) and Zalmunna (Conscious­ness of the Dead) are not dead yet; and we are assured that the Faithful will gain the victory In this Battle, and participate therein until its completion. Our tracts, Where are the Dead, What is the Soul and The Resurrection are especially designed for serving at church doors, as well as for individual witness work. We have been getting good results from the bereaved work, and we encourage our brethren to con­tinue in this good work also.

It has never been our policy to stress witness work to the world ahead of the more important good work in ourselves and of 'laying down our lives' for the brethren. However, if we would be fully faithful we must be zealous in the study, practice and spread of the Truth. We quote from That Servant in the May 7 Manna Comment, in which our own sentiments are well expressed:

“We should be prompt to tell others the best tidings we have.... Whoever does not thus proclaim daily or on every suitable opportunity, gives evidence either of lack of knowledge, or of faith in the revelation, or of selfishness, which the Lord cannot approve, and which, if persisted in, will ultimately debar him from a share in the Kingdom.”

We find a warm and loving zeal and “fervent spirit” among many of our dear brethren who are greatly handicapped by physical infirmities, age, etc. Our Lord says, “Blessed be ye poor” (Luke 6:20 – See Berean Comment) – for they are rich in­deed In faith and in good works.

Some of our brethren experienced what took place in the 1916-17 separation, when they thought they could serve the Truths some of the Groups still retained, even though these groups were perverting and revolutionizing against other pertinent Truths. Some, of course, didn't see the error, so it was right and proper that they serve what was in fact the Truth they still retained. We now realize that it is improper even to participate in a 'good work' with those whom we know to be serving error also – hence our desire and effort to reproduce these 'timely tracts' under our name. We realize that all the groups in Big and Little Babylon do some “good works” – some more, some less – otherwise they couldn't exist as groups; but That Servant tells us in the August 15, 1910 Watch Tower that we are not to cooper­ate with such:

“It is our work to take care of ourselves, although we are not to acknowledge or cooperate with those whom we believe are associating error even with good works. We should not in any sense lend our influence to the assistance of evil.”

Brother Johnson warned us of Combinationism – says it is a great sin – the third Slaughter-Weapon man. Those of us who have basked in both Parousia and Epiphany Truth have great responsibility, and should not be carried away by 'every wind of doctrine.' “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.” (Exodus 23:2)

So we cordially invite all our brethren who are 'like-minded' to join with us in this Special Effort – an arrangement for Epiphany purposes established by the Epiphany Messenger.

NO. 134: R.G. JOLLY AGAIN

NO. 134

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

On pages 44-47 of this May-June Present Truth R. G. Jolly once again resorts to his favorite pastime of “repetitiously claiming... speaking in righteousness and sincerity.... that he is God's workmanship (See E-10:586) And because of this pharisaical attitude, Brother Johnson describes him and others on p. 591 (having mentioned R. G. Jolly by name on p. 585) as “loquacious, repetitious and false-accusing.... pouring out foolish effusions.” It would seem that any one properly exercised in humility would have been so humiliated by this caustic re­buke – presented before the General Church – that he would be sufficiently sobered never to repeat such tactics. Let him show where Brother Johnson ever issued such a stinging and humiliating accusation against JJH! We realize, of course, that R. G. Jolly is desperate; but his real desperate concern should have to do with cleansing himself, rather than attack one who had befriended him so generously in the past.

In Question 2 on p. 44, he says we “boast falsely that Brother Johnson appointed us as a General Elder in the Church (which is obviously false, for he never was a can­didate for Little Flockship)”; and that we sign ourselves as “Pilgrim.” Such an expression from him is clear evidence that he is still in the clutches of Azazel, or he never would have made such a ridiculous spectacle of himself! What has been his own history? Was he not precipitously expelled as Pilgrim from the Little Flock because of his own unfaithfulness? And was he not openly exposed before all by Brother Johnson for his “foolish effusions”? As for JJH, Brother Johnson was always expansive In his praise of his faithfulness and zeal toward the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. And R. G. Jolly expressed himself similarly toward us ­until we began attack upon his sins of teaching and practice, and his “whispering campaign” (one of his secret weapons—See E-10, p. 585, bottom) to destroy our good influence in the General Church. Why doesn't he explain just what our Pilgrim appointment did give us in the General Church?

In proof of our statements aforegoing, we set out below R. G. Jolly's own state­ment in the September 1952 Present Truth, p. 70, col. 2:

“Bro. John J. Hoefle, of Detroit, Mich., was one of Bro. Johnson's special assistants in a more potent way than most of the brethren realize. Throughout most of the Epiphany, and even to the end of his life, Bro. Johnson leaned on Bro. Hoefle in special ways, finding in him an ever ready and willing helper, often under very exacting conditions that involved much sacrifice and self-denial. Probably the largest financial contributor to the Lord's Epiphany work, he came to Bro. Johnson's relief in times of special need, making possible the purchase of plates and other materials for various books that were published, donating the Bible House property free from debt to the work (and subsequently sold by R. G. Jolly for about $11,000, and the proceeds used to improve the Philadelphia Tabernacle—JJH) and additionally donating thousands of dollars, to the exhaustion of his finances, in the spirit of the Lord's instruction in Matt. 6:19-21. He also ably helped Bro. Johnson in legal and general executive matters. E.g., in 1937 he started action in the courts which resulted in the LHMM obtaining income-tax-free status, donations made to it by others also being now free from taxation and deductible in Individual income-tax returns. This has resulted in quite an increase in funds for carrying on the work, and has served as a precedent in obtaining for the LHMM more favorable positions and deci­sions, e.g., in connection with various bequests, deeds, U.S. Customs, U.S. Courts and other agencies, employment tax exemptions, tax-free services, lower rates, etc.

In 1947 ‘at a most opportune time’ he left everything to serve at Bro. Johnson's bedside, assisting in correspondence work, etc. Bro. Johnson spoke of him as ‘my real son Timothy’ and later wrote him: ‘I love you because of your personal good qualities, which I appreciate, and because of the great service you have been to the Epiphany Truth.’ Bro. arranged for him to act as executor for himself and Sr. Johnson, and made special request that he serve at his funeral. Indeed, Bro. Hoefle, WHO ALSO SERVED AS A PILGRIM, was one of Bro. Johnson's seven special helpers.”

The above was not published at our request, we had no hand whatever in compos­ing it, were not at all aware it was to appear in the Present Truth until that paper came to us through the mail. It will be noted R. G. Jolly himself says we “served as a Pilgrim”; yet he now attempts to berate us for using the title. He was quite agreeable, however, when it served his own purposes. Thus, we have now before us a livid example of “a doubleminded man (a crown-loser), unstable in all his ways.” If the brethren will just keep in mind his “doublemindedness,” they will not likely be led astray by his Levitical antics. Of course, in all this he has taken his leading from his “Pastor and teacher,” J. W. Krewson, who also attempted to besmirch our Pilgrim status when our refutations of his errors became much more than he could bear. “Birds of a feather”! They are indeed close “first cousins.” For the bene­fit of our faithful brethren we now record that no faithful Pastor and Teacher ever accused us of unfaithfulness, or measurably faithfulness, to the Truth and its Arrangements. This has only been done by crown-lost leaders, revolutionists and perverters. As R. G. Jolly has truthfully pointed out, Brother Johnson found us faithful to the Epiphany Truth – and our faithfulness to the Parousia Truth rewarded us with the Epiphany Truth early in the Epiphany period.

As a further instance of R. G. Jolly's “double mind,” note his comments con­cerning J. W. Krewson in par. 1, col. 1, p. 45. He there truthfully states that J. W. Krewson was never appointed by Brother Johnson “as a teacher for the Lord's people in general, either as a Pilgrim or an Auxiliary Pilgrim.” Here R. G. Jolly inferentially admits that J. W. Krewson would have been privileged to teach “the Lord's people in general” had he received the proper recognition from the Epiphany Messenger; yet he derides us for proclaiming our own appointment to this office. Truly, these doubleminded perverters (Azazel means Perverter) seem to be capable of the wildest kind of mental gymnastics as occasion requires. We realize, of course, that his contentions in this Present Truth are prompted by desperation; and in due time more of his present supporters will become aware of this. As Brother Johnson often said of JFR, the very things he wrote disparagingly about others apply pointedly to him; and we now say the same concerning R. G. Jolly.

THE EPIPHANY: ITS NARROW AND WIDER SENSES

In col. 1, p. 45 R. G. Jolly tries to make a case for himself in his perversion of the Epiphany as the last special period of the Gospel Age; and here again he acts in truly Jolly fashion by resorting to his “loquacious, false-accusing foolish effusions.” (See E-10:591, par. 1) He cites E-4:49-52 to “prove” that Brother Johnson “plainly showed that the duration of the Epiphany period in its narrow, or restricted, sense would be until 1954.” At no place in those pages does Brother Johnson once use the words “narrow or restricted sense” – nor does he use either of these words in those pages – nor did anywhere ever speak of the Epi­phany in its “narrow sense” (although he did speak of the Time of Trouble in its wide and narrow sense – teaching us that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble in its “narrow sense” are identical – i.e. from 1914 to the end of Jacob's Trouble). This is pure invention by R. G. Jolly himself (the same as his Justification outside the linen curtain) – a tool of convenience to mislead his sleepy readers.

In this connection, note especially his unscrupulous technique at top of p. 45, col. 2, where he “quotes” Brother Johnson from E-4:51 (as he handles the Epiphany Messenger's writing's deceitfully): “We think it reasonable to look for the Epi­phany to begin to end (that is, to end in its narrow, or restricted sense) in 1954 with (in a wider sense) a probable lapping of two years and one month into the Basileia, Kingdom.”

In the above, those words in parenthesis, and underscored by us, are not in Brother Johnson's statement at all; they are simply a bold and unprincipled inter­polation by R. G. Jolly himself, although no one would suspect this unless they read Epiphany Vol. 4, p. 51 for themselves. Yet in the same col. 2 on p. 45 he accuses JJH of “the tactics of a shyster lawyer” – a description which applies pointedly to him. In fact, the civil courts of our land would evaluate R. G. Jolly's “quotation” as blatant fraud. When Brother Johnson accused R. G. Jolly in Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 585 of having “a bad conscience” and guilty of many “misrepresentations,” and a “false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser,” it is now clear enough that his charge was no exaggeration: R. G. Jolly is still up to his old tricks; though years have taught him just nothing. Only the most unprincipled “shyster lawyer” would resort to such tac­tics in a desperate effort to prevail in his argument. We pity him! Apparently it will take only the most extreme of fit-man experiences to “cleanse” and sober him; and we patiently await the Lord's manifestations of his deplorable condition “in due time.”

And in identical fashion he endeavors to class JJH with J. W. Krewson – as being lopsided on the Epiphany (although we believe and teach the same now as we did under Brother Johnson – “The Time of Trouble in its narrow sense – from 1914 to the end of Jacob's trouble – is IDENTICAL with the Epiphany period); whereas, R. G. Jolly demonstrates himself once more as a true “cousin” to his former partner in error. R. G. Jolly claims we are now in the Basileia (the Kingdom), which, if true, catalogs the worst features of the Time of Trouble as a Kingdom performance. J. W. Krewson says we are now in the Apokalypsis, which is a direct repudiation of the Epiphany Messenger's teaching that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical. It would be most interesting to hear an explanation from both the “cousins” as to just how Brother Johnson could be the Epiphany Messenger, yet be so wrong on his under­standing of the Epiphany as identical with the Tine of Trouble in its narrow sense (1914 to the end of Jacob's Trouble).

These two “cousins” have also invented a class now (one naming them Quasi-elect Consecrated; the other, Consecrated Epiphany Campers) to go hand in hand with the Jehovah's Witnesses' Jonadabs, or Great Crowd. When the Epiphany Messenger was here, he had described the Jonadabs as “a non-existent class”; but he never had an oppor­tunity to express himself on the “strange fire” (false doctrine) of the “cousins” (the reason being that they didn't openly advocate such false doctrine while under the restraining hand of the true Pastor and Teacher). And in all this bedlam of con­fusion the one “cousin” designates himself the Apokalypsis Messenger; and the other – ­by inference, at least – labels himself the Basileia Messenger (as he beckons to the Restitutionists to consecrate), yet at the sane time publishing the “Present Truth and Herald of the Epiphany.” Just how 'foolish' can he get! (See Matt. 25:2; also Berean Comment on Matt. 25:5: “And many of them dreamed strange, unreasonable things”—)

And when Brother Johnson does mention “the Epiphany in its widest sense” at bottom of p. 51, R. G. Jolly is either willfully perverting Brother Johnson's thought, or he just has read something without understanding what he has read. Why didn't he go over to P. 53, par. 51. to refer his readers to Brother Johnson's clear statement of just what he did mean to say? We now quote some of it:

“The expression, The Time of Trouble, is used in two senses. In its wide sense it covers the period from 1874 until the end of Anarchy and of Jacob's trouble. In its narrow sense it covers the period from the beginning of the World War in 1914 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob's trouble. It is in the narrow – the second-sense of that tern that we use it in our subject. We understand that the special tribulation period (from 1914 to the end of Jacob's trouble—JJH) and the Epiphany as a period are one add the same thing.” And with this we are In full agreement, and have been presenting it exactly as Brother Johnson has It against R. G. Jolly's perversions and repudiations of the Epiphany Messenger's teaching on the Epiphany period. We call particular attention to the fact that Brother Johnson's Time of Trouble “in its narrow sense” is from 1914 to the complete end of the Trouble. Thus, to “narrow” it, he takes forty years off the beginning (just as we have stated) from 1874 to 19l4; but nothing at all off the ending. This is just the reverse of R. G. Jolly's handling of the Epiphany. He takes nothing off the front end to reach his “narrow” (or restricted) sense!

Let R. G. Jolly give us his understanding of the foregoing – if he has one; but we may be reasonably certain he'll be glad to drop this part of Brother Johnson's explanation in a hurry, because it directly contradicts – and sets to naught – what he has set forth in his May-June PT. So once again we offer Brother Johnson's words respecting such “doubleminded” would-be “mouthpieces” of the lord: “Why do they so often quote passages to prove points positively disproved by those very passages? Is it not because they are in Azazel's hands, and are thus blinded by him, and at his direction palm off his errors on the dear unsuspecting sheep of God's flock?”

R. G. Jolly says we give no quotation from Brother Johnson to prove the “narrow­ing” is at the beginning of the Epiphany, and not at its end. We've given the above citation in our past papers; but we realize he is so befuddled by Azazel that he can't read plain and simple English, and understand what he has read after he reads it. He is now experiencing the penalty of “the unprofitable servant” (Matt. 25:30—­See Berean Comment) – “cast into outer darkness,” Error, which has overcome him in various respects. The weeping and “gnashing of teeth” (sorrow, disappointment and chagrin in every sense—See Berean Comment) is an experience yet future for him, if he is to be cleansed. Nor should this surprise us; it is the very thing Brother Johnson had predicted for these perverters as we go further into the Epiphany:

“Azazel means averter, perverter, and is Satan (1 Cor. 5:5) in his capacity of using the Great Company (the “unprofitable servant,” who is cast into outer darkness, error—JJH) to avert and pervert the Lord's Truth and arrangements; i.e., to work Revolutionism.”

As Brother Johnson has also properly deduced, these Perverters always appear much better under the restraining hand of the Star Member than they do when free of such restraint. Thus, JFR, and many others, performed much meritorious service under Brother Russell – just as R. G. Jolly did under Brother Johnson (although we shouldn't overlook the fact that he was unfaithful enough under Brother Russell to lose his crown as so manifested in the Epiphany – losing Priestly fellowship and his Pilgrim appointment in the Church which is His Body, etc., under Brother Johnson. We now witness his further revolutionisms and perversions without having the restraining hand of either Star Member – “while he is very unfaithful”—See Epiphany Vol. 15, p. 519). And just as JFR showed his real inner self after Brother Russell's death, so R. G. Jolly has done the same since Brother Johnson's death. So we should “think it not strange” that he now perverts one truth after another that he at least appeared to accept and teach while Brother Johnson was still with us. And, unless he speedily reverses his present course, he will lose completely his position in the Great Company – If he has not already done so – just as he lost his position in the Little Flock under Brother Russell. Let him show some evidence of reformation, and he will find us, and other faithful brethren, as ready to give him brotherly help and favor as we did in the early years of the Epiphany. But, until he does that, we may sadly expect him to sink deeper and deeper into the quag­mire of error; and he will carry with him those new creatures, Youthful Worthies and tentatively-justified whose minds and hearts incline to his evil ways.

“Deliver me, 0 Lord, from the evil man (in Azazel's clutches): preserve me from the violent man: Which imagine mischiefs (false-accusing imaginations)..... They have sharpened their tongues like serpents; adders' poison (error and slander) is under their lips. Blessed be the Lord my rock (margin) which teacheth my hands to war” (to refute the Revolutionism of false-accusing Epiphany crown-losers). Psa. 140:1-3; 144:1–

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in the Master's Name!

Now with the Memorial still fresh in our minds come the sad feelings in the death of Brother Walcott. He passed away on April 30 at 7:45 p.m., after suffering in a bed of affliction for nearly six months when it pleased the Lord to relieve him of such suffering. We have all reason to believe that all was well with him and the dear Lord – for during his suffering he lived very near to the Cross. My two last visits with him were on the 22nd and 29th, when we prayed with him and he died the next day. There was a very large attendance at the funeral. I gave the discourse – “The Hope of the Creation,” taking my first text from Romans 8:20,21 and Acts 24:15, and other appropriate texts. Brother Peters assisted.

The June paper is here and is fine.... I also received the last papers “God's Great Sabbath Day” with more Resurrection of the Dead. The dear ones are in good spirit, and they always ask me to remember them to you and Sister Hoefle and the dear ones with you.....

Dear Brother, please continue to hold us up at the Throne of Grace, as we con­tinue to make mention of you when we go to the lord in prayer. Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee........ Numbers 6:24-26. Your brother in the one hope, ------- (TRINIDAD)

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: I hope you and your loved ones there are well. Forgive me..... for I know you are busy with this wonderful work.

I rely upon your letters and your advice. Your letters and mail have been such a strength to me. Perhaps I cannot explain it correctly. I know the spirit of Jesus will let you know that you have done a ministerial work here with me.... The book Heavenly Manna is always by my side – and I read it with understanding. I have grown in the knowledge of our Lord. My life is more satisfying –Praise His Name! I feel that you are including me in your prayers, because some of my daily worries are over and my pains are fewer. Please continue to join me in these prayers. May your strength be multiplied and your desires all be fulfilled.

Christian love, ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace! I have been quite disappointed that I did not receive the April letter this month. Will you please send to me at once...... We were in California for about four weeks, and I came in contact with Brother & Sister ------- and Brother and Sister ------- They are quite well and the Epiphany Campers idea of Brother Jolly doesn't have any appeal to them. Was over to Brother ------- who is holding along the views of Bro. Johnson and yourself, rather than Bro. Jolly's Epiphany Camp, which I was glad to see in a discourse he gave....... Brother ------- has moved. Will give you his new address and some others.

The Epiphany friends here seem to have given up the idea of a large public work to be done – even admitting that they expect their ranks to grow smaller year by year. We sure enjoyed your masterful article on the Six Saved Classes......

I am sending you $--- to help you in your expense in the general work. Am enclosing some names .. Hoping this completes your mailing list

With much Christian love ------- (ARIZONA)