A statement

We haven’t had to restate "the rules" for some time. And I suppose that’s not exactly what I’m doing now. We post minor bits of our research on this blog. Serious research goes up on our private blog for review by a group of knowledgeable, interested readers.

We write history books. Our research supports our own writing. We’re not here to support your projects. That doesn’t mean we’re not happy to hear from blog readers. It means we cannot further your project beyond a general answer to your questions unless we’re receiving significant material from you in return.

I don’t care who you know or who you pretend to represent. I don’t care who your "important friend" may be. None of that will gain you special access to our research or draw us off into controversy with you. Our sole interest is in accurate research. If you have something to contribute, or a correction to make, or want to offer help, I’m more than happy to hear from you.

As an aside, no member of the Governing Body would send you to us back channel. Don’t take that tack with us. It will make me raise my eyebrows, but it won’t get you access to aspects of our research we haven’t published here. The Watch Tower Society knows Mr. Schulz’ address and its representatives are perfectly capable of asking their own questions.

There are older bits of research we’ve left up on this blog. Be aware that some of it may be dated. We are far beyond what remains on this blog, but we don’t post it here. We stopped posting updates here because some used our research as if it were their own discoveries and because of low-grade harassment by religious zealots.

Our work in progress is two thirds done, and we’re at 220,000 words including a mass of footnotes. There will be many never seen or seldom seen photos. It presents a new approach to the era between 1870 and 1887. There will be things you’ve never seen or heard of. We think it will change the approach to this era of Watch Tower history.

We tackle a series of mythologies built up around Russell. When it is finally published and you read it, don’t ignore the footnotes. Most are just references, but if you don’t read them you’ll miss interesting things. (Millennial Dawn evangelist arrested for threats is an example). We identify people left unnamed in official histories, telling their stories. We tell you about the criminal behavior of one of Russell’s associates. (a dirty rascal indeed!) But be aware that we’re writing well researched history, not a scandal rag, and we’re not parroting the anti-Russell or pro-Russell mythologies that abound.

We draw almost exclusively from contemporary sources, including letters and personal papers of the principals. So much for that.

Ultimately, how we respond to an email from you depends on how you present yourself. We size you up by what you write. Think about that before you send me an email.

Don't name drop.

My answer to a recent email:

I forwarded your email to Mr. Schulz. The information on our public blog about William Imre Mann is old research, and we have updated it since. We do not have a photo for him. If the Watchtower Society has questions about the first Watch Tower directors they may contact Mr. Schulz directly. They have his address.

Mr. Schulz has been a Witness since 1952 or earlier. I am a simple historian with a religion of my own. Personally, I'm reluctant to share our hard won research without an expectation of reciprocity. Mr. Schulz is more giving than I am.

We have some photos of Russell's early associates, but though we've searched for Mann's we haven't located one. We don't have Simon Osborne Blunden's photo or that for J. F. Smith, though we have a photo of his place of business and some letters he wrote. William C. McMillan's personal records have come our way in a limited way. We have H. B. Rice's photo; several for Paton; B. W. Keith's photo; original letters by and a photo of Sunderlin.

As I said above, if the Watch Tower needs this information, they should contact Mr. Schulz directly. We no longer post significant research to our public blog because of harassment from various sources and the unattributed use of our research. All our current research goes up on an invitation only blog.

We are no longer taking requests for access from people we do not know. Access is open to professional historians who we many know personally or individuals who come with a recomendation from someone we know and who can contribute in a meaningful way to our current research.

R. M. de Vienne

help with this?

We need the first name of Mrs. Bell, the wife of Rev. William Bell, head master of Dover College, Dover, Kent, England, in the 1880s.

Can you help with this ...?

One of those who read our history blogs needs a really clear, color scan of the 1931 Convention Program. Anyone?

that was quick! thanks

Joseph Dunn

We need solid biographical information about Joseph Dunn, apparently a clergyman, living in Hague, New York, in 1901. Anyone?

Convention picture

A convention photograph with some familiar faces. The front row is A H MacMillan, J F Rutherford, C T Russell, E W Brenneisen, F F Cook (?) and O L Sullivan.

All these men were on the same convention program at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland, in September 1911, so my best guess is that the photograph dates from then.

John Bohnet vs. Benjamin Wilson

John A Bohnet was a well-known name in Watch Tower history. Donator of Miracle Wheat, manager of the cemetery where CTR was buried, he later wrote articles for the Golden Age magazine.

Benjamin Wilson of course was the author or compiler of the Emphatic Diaglott.

The two men met by appointment in 1892, and Bohnet later wrote up the experience in this article from the Bible Student newspaper, the St Paul Enterprise. It was featured on the front page of the issue for April 4, 1916.

Note that Wilson states that he is not a Christadelphian.

Interviewing a reluctant writer

... wherein I interview B. W. Schulz, pretty much against his will ... Enjoy it while it lasts. -Rachael

An Interview

R: So, you’re really going to let me interview you? … and post it to the blog?

B: Reluctantly.

R: Do I need permission to treat you as a hostile witness?

B: [Laughs]

R: You’re probably the most knowledgeable expert – maybe the only expert – when it comes to early Watch Tower history. Tell us how you became interested in Watch Tower history.

B: In 1955 The Watchtower published a series on its history. It was my introduction to the subject. Then, at the Awake Ministers District Assembly in 1959 the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose was released. It’s a heavily-footnoted history written in dialogue format ….

R: That was in 1959?

B: Yes.

R: You read the book …

B: Yes, most of it in our hotel room that evening. Later, I looked up as many of the references as I could.

R: The Watchtower has published other histories since. Would you still recommend the Divine Purpose book?

B: No serious researcher can afford to ignore it. When H. G. Wells History was published – in 1924 I think – a number of historians reviewed it. They praised it fairly uniformly, but many of them said something like, “Well, this is great, except my area of expertise should have gotten more attention.” That’s my opinion of Divine Purpose. It’s worth a read. Don’t ignore it. But for the era we’re researching it’s abbreviated and wrong.

R: When did you start writing about Watchtower history?

B: In the mid-1960s.

R: Published?

B: No, strictly for myself.

R: Tell me about it.

B: Reading the available material left me believing that most of the story was untold. I pursued original material, took notes and wrote them up. The net result was a three hundred page manuscript that covered much of the era we’re writing about now. It was very unsatisfactory.

R: Why?

B: Significant parts of it came from secondary sources. That seldom produces good history.

R: You wrote other things?

B: Some commercial product and two lengthy research papers on Watchtower history.

R: Those were for …

B: The research papers? For someone else’s book. They didn’t use or used very little of it.

R: You are a Witness.

B: Yes, since the early 1950s.

R: Does this color what you write?

B: When I started, yes. There is a sort of mythology surrounding Russell. This developed during his lifetime. There is Russell the Saint, and Russell the Villain. I was predisposed to the “sainthood” myth.

R: What changed?

B: Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah, Paul.

R: [Puzzled look]

B: The Bible is a remarkably candid book. Noah’s drunkenness, Lot’s incest, Moses’ temper, the raped concubine, Jeremiah’s peevishness, and Jonah’s reluctance find their place in the Bible’s narrative. The Bible depicts men of faith in blunt way, telling us of their godly deeds and their faults. That’s my model. The Bible is an excellent example for historians who may also have a religious belief system.

God is perfect. His worshipers are not. The peevish, sometimes perverted, occasionally stupid or silly behavior of his worshipers may be unattractive, but it is part of their story.

R: Your first book in this series …

B: Our first book …

R: Our first book was Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Tell me how that project started.

B: It started life as an article for a religious history magazine. They wanted ten to fifteen thousand words, original research with end notes. In short order – as these things go – it became apparent that what we were writing would be significantly longer. I measured what we had against the magazine’s requirements, deciding that we had a developing book instead of an article. I begged off from the article.

R: Reactions to the book? … You’re smiling ….

B: A wry smile, I’m sure.

Reactions were mixed, though mostly favorable. A literary-agent friend of yours looked at it and pronounced it excellent but not something she could readily sell. Someone asked me not to publish it because it made ‘the truth’ seem less than divine. A Bible Student railed against it because it was about Barbour. Another pronounced it ‘just history.’ He is dismissive of everyone’s work but his own. He already knows what another may discover, he already owns the reference material though he never produces it. One reviewer suggested it was boring because there is no great scandal in it. On the other hand, professional historians love the book. It is, in a minor way, a myth-busting book. Those who want an accurate history like it. Those with an interest in preserving myth don’t.

R: The next book pops cherished myths …

B: Yes.

R: Such as …

B: There are endless myths connected to Russell. We peel away as many of those as we can. Claims about his childhood, his connections to various groups and philosophies, claims made about his business. We put him back into his historical context and tell as fully as possible the paths he took and who his associates were and what part they played in his theological development.

R: There will be surprises?

B: Maybe … probably.

R: A publication date?

B: Not yet; too much left to research. We find something new almost every day.

R: The next book will focus on the years 1870 to 1887?

B: With overlap on each side of that date span.

R: Now that didn’t hurt at all, did it?

B: I have a head ache now.

R: One last question: Tell us about your academic credentials.

B: No.

R: Please …

B: Okay, stop pouting. I have a history degree and an education degree both from colleges of little note. I teach.

R: [Insert un-lady-like snort here.]

More on Horace Randle

 

Horace A. Randle is mentioned in the Proclaimers book (page 418) and his story has been well told on the two history blogs. A medical missionary in China, he resigned after reading Millennial Dawn, and came back home to England. He published an eight page tract on Future Probation in 1901 from London. The census returns for London in 1901 describe him as “Medical Missionary and Preacher, Millennial Dawn Christian.” He was then living with his wife Ellen, and son Arnold.

In 1907 he started a short-lived magazine entitled Good News of the Coming Age published in Salford. At least one issue is in the British Library, but only a small portion can be copied, and then only by someone physically visiting the library.

In the 1911 census, Horace was in Salford at his sister’s home, along with his mother and two brothers. His wife and son Arnold were still living in London. References to Millennial Dawn had disappeared; he was now just described as Medical Missionary retired.

He appears to have left association with ZWT over the New Covenant issue (see Proclaimers page 630) and by 1914 was circulating material critical of both CTR’s revised views on the New Covenant, and also his high profile in the media of the day.

As a result, the St Paul Enterprise – a newspaper mainly published for Bible Students – in its issue for September 25, 1914, printed a response from an Alex Evans of the Olive Branch Ecclesia in Louisiana.

This response was viewed as sufficiently important to be reprinted in a special issue of the St Paul Enterprise in November 1914, where Evans is described as “one of our colored brethren.” This suggests that Randle’s criticism was quite widely circulated at the time in the Bible Student community.

Randle’s subsequent activities are not known, but he died in the Salford area in the latter part of 1926 aged 71.

Below is a transcript taken from the first publication of Alex Evans’ rebuttal.

 

Alex. Evans replies to Mr. Horace A. Randle

 

A Member of an Ecclesia at Olive Branch, Louisiana, in defense of Pastor Russell, Submits this Open Letter.

 

 

Olive Branch, La., Sept. 3d, 1914.
 

Editor St. Paul Enterprise:

 

 

I have read an open letter to Pastor Russell by Horace A. Randle, in which he makes several charges. I wish to make the following reply:
 

The letter is written in an apparently Christian Spirit. But herein lies its Evil Subtility, for we remember the Betrayal kiss by Judas which had the outward appearance of an act of Love, but proved to be the farthest thing from Love.
 

Randle claims that Pastor Russell and the Bible Students’ movement has changed in recent years; to this I quote the following Scripture: "The path of the Just is as a shining light that shineth more and more, unto the perfect day." (Prov. 4:18.) "Walk as children of the light." (Eph. 5:8.) "If we walk (not ‘sit’) in the light." (1John 1:7.)
 

Some claim that the one whom the Lord would use as "That Servant," at His second advent (Matt. 24:46; Luke 12:42) would need be infallible, perfect, and make no mistakes. But there have been only two perfect men on earth, Adam and Jesus. I have heard people say that both of them made mistakes: That Adam made a mistake in thinking that it would be better to transgress and die with Eve than to live alone after her death. And that Jesus made a mistake in going to a certain fig tree for figs and found nothing but leaves. Whether this be so or not, I can’t see why anyone should blame Pastor Russell for making and correcting a few little errors during the long period of the last forty years. Rather we should say, He has done well.

 

 

Randle says that, the pastor errs in saying that the Goat of Lev. 16:15 is a type of the church, and that it signifies that the church is a joint sacrifice with Jesus in the world’s great sin offering.
 

If the Lord’s Goat, and its process of offering did not typify the church and its suffering with Jesus, I ask, What then did it typify? All Bible Students ought to be able to agree that Jesus was an exact corresponding price for Adam, and that justice calls for nothing more. Yet we can see how it could "permit" more to be put on the measure. We remember how Jesus spoke of giving measures. He said: "Pressed down, shaken together, and "running over." (See Luke 6:38.) What if the church is found to be making the measure overflow? And what shall we do with the following Scripture if the church is not a joint sacrifice with Jesus?

 

 

"Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." (Heb. 13:13.)
 

"We are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (Eph. 5:33.)
 

"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body’s sake, "which is the church:’" ( Col. 1:24.) (There was a portion left behind for the church to fill up according to this Scripture.) Again we read, "Both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are one." (not two.) (Heb 2:11.)

 

 

"I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." (John 17:9.)
 

"A people for his name." (Acts 15:14.) (What people?)
 

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the Glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you (the church) the Hope of Glory." (Col. 1:27.)
 

"If ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:29.)
 

"If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may also be Glorified Together." (Rom. 8:17.) (The joint heirship depends upon the joint sufferingship, in the type the Goat suffered with the Bullock.)
 

"If we suffer with Him, (as did the Goat with the Bullock) we shall also reign with Him." (2 Tim. 2:12.)
 

I could cite many more Scriptures showing that the church (His church) takes a part with Jesus in the world’s great sin offering. Not that justice required it, but that wisdom and love arranged it so. It is not an obligation, but a great privilege, the greatest ever offered.

 

 

There are two more standpoints from which we can view nearly everything, and so it is with the subject under discussion. From one standpoint, we can view it as being all done by Jesus, because all the merit resides in Him, and from another viewpoint we see each member of His church presenting themselves to be joint sacrificers with Jesus filling in a place as though the sin offering would not have been complete without them. But from either view point it remains materially the same.
 

Jesus wears the title of priest at the present time and the apostle says every priest must have something to offer (Heb. 8:3) and the intimation is that when He ceases to have anything to offer, then His priestly office will end. Now I ask, what does Jesus have now to offer, remembering that He has long since offered Himself once for all time? Still he has something to offer, and what else could it be but His church, His mystical body in the flesh? Rom. 12:1 comes in right here. We present ourselves to Him, and He presents us to the Father. The High Priest in the type supervised all the sacrificing and the same is being done in the antitype. It is all so beautiful and clear to many Bible Students, including the writer.

 

 

The relation or connection that Christ and His church bear one another, has been the mystery unsolvable for many centuries to not only the world, but also to the nominal church.

 

 

But now in the light of the foregoing we can understand Heb. 5:3. As the church was to become part of Himself, (His wife, Rev. 19:7) in the sense of becoming a member of the great Messianic body of which He was the head, it can thus be said the he made an offering for himself, although he had no personal sin. (Heb. 7:25.)
 

Concerning the "new covenant," I will say, If it has gone into operation as Mr. Randle and others say, I would like them to tell us why it is that the Jews don’t know anything about it? According to the Scriptures it is to be made with them. (See Jer. 31:31, and Heb. 8:10.) And where is the "new heart" and general knowledge that is to result from it? I know that these questions are unanswerable, except from the viewpoint that both Jesus and His church are the world’s great testator; and before the Testament can go into effect, the death of the Testator must take place. As the church, which is a part of the great Testator, has not finished dying. The "new covenant" has not gone into effect yet; for where a Testament is, there must also be the Death of the Testator, says the apostle. (Heb. 9:16.) Though we are now serving, and being made able ministers of the "new covenant," in the sense of preparing ourselves for it.
 

Randle complains about the Pastor’s name appearing in a certain Tower more times than the name of Jesus. There is no virtue in mentioning a name, nor a lack of virtue by not mentioning it. Bible Students will remember that Jesus said that many will say to Him in that day, Lord, Lord, (calling his name double) have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name done wonders, cast out devils, etc.? And he will answer them saying, I have never recognized you; depart from me ye workers of iniquity. (Matt. 7:23.)
 

Again He asked: Why call ye me Lord, Lord, (so many times) and do not the thing which I say? (Luke 6:46.) Upon the testimony of these Scriptures we can rest assured that nothing is to be gained by calling the Lord’s name so many times. And as to Pastor Russell’s name appearing in the Jan. 1, 1912, Tower a good many times, that is the special Tower setting forth the beginning and development of present Truth, and the Harvest Work as was called for by newspaper editors who were contracting to publish the sermons; because they knew that the world wants to know about the personality of a man, where he came from, etc.; and had Pastor Russell not granted their innocent request, He would not have been acting wisely, because editors would have refused to publish a man’s sermons who had refused to make Himself known, and the Tower contained such, together with newspaper clipping; that all its readers might know how the work we love so much was progressing. The pastor objected to his picture going at the head of his sermons but the editors protested that it must be and he granted it only to keep from hindering the cause he loved so well as to sacrifice his thousands of dollars and himself for.
 

The Pastor made clear his unselfish motive in the start when he sacrificed his prosperous business and himself for the good of others and he maintains this same motive even unto this day. And the facts, when all of them are known about this noble man, will prove that a prophet sent of God has been in our midst, and he will go down in history as one of the greatest of men.

 

 

I am glad that I had the privilege of reading that open letter for it has caused me to research my Bible and Pastor Russell’s writings in the Tabernacle Shadows and to thus review the cloud of Scripture witnesses in the Pastor’s doctrinal favor. And I would suggest to all those who have not read the "Tabernacle Shadows" and "The Divine Plan of the Ages," by Pastor Russell, to do so on the first opportunity and begin to enjoy the feast of fat things therein revealed. They can be obtained from the W. T. B. & T. Society, 17 Hicks St., Brooklyn, N. Y., at a nominal cost or free to those who need.

 

 

"I live for those who love me,

And awaits my coming too;

And the good that I can do."

For the cause that lacks assistance,

For the future in the distance,

For the Heaven that smiles above me,

For the wrong that needs resistance,

For those who know me true;

 

 

Yours in the defense of the Lord’s Truth, and His special servant,
 

ALEX. EVANS.

 

 

(end of transcript)

Question

Does anyone know if the UK based post card photographer H. A. Randall is Horace A. Randall?

Paton's Larger Hope Church in Almont

This picture has already appeared on other related blogs, and shows John Paton’s Larger Hope Church in his home town of Almont.

Paton was expelled from the Baptists for teaching conditional immortality, and so built an Advent Church in Almont in 1872. As he moved into Universalism (and so parted from CTR) his Church became known as the Larger Hope Church. According to the book “Almont, The Tale of Then and Now” by Hildamae Waltz Bowman page 91 (1985 edition) from where the picture comes, it was founded in 1872 with fifteen members and folded twenty-five years later due to lack of support. By the twentieth century it was no more. Paton’s Buchanan Church featured in a post below lasted just a little longer.

The church subsequently became an extra school building, a rug factory, and then a private home. It still stands to-day in North Bristol Street, Almont. Intrepid net surfers can try and locate it using Google Earth.

Paton's Larger Hope Church in Buchanan

 

Paton’s Larger Hope Church (a former Advent Christian Church building) in his home town of Almont apparently closed before the end of the 19^th century.

Its sister church in Buchanan (pictured above) lasted a little longer. Like the Almont building, it was another former Adventist Church, and Lizzie Allen was pastor there for some time around 1890. There was a direct rail link from Buchanan to Imlay City, about eight miles north of Almont, and this allowed Paton to visit at will. Newspaper records show funerals conducted in Buchanan by John H Paton (sometimes as Elder sometimes as Rev.) for members such as Isaac Marble (1901), Aaron Miller (1904), Clarissa Mead (1905), Mary Miller Mowbray (1907) and Jane Wagner (1907).

The book Greetings from Buchanan (Goodsell and Myers 2005) describes how Paton’s Buchanan Church was ultimately sold off to the Seventh Day Adventists in 1921. It was then sold to the Church of Christ in the 1950s before eventually being torn down to make a parking lot.

We need a good scan or photocopy of this

J. W. Brite

We need to see a clear photocopy of J. W. Brite's Eternity: On the Plan of the Ages. This was published by Paton in 1891. A copy is at Harvard Divinity School Library. Our photocopy fund is at zero. Anyone want to help?

More Horace Randle

 

From an eight page tract published in London by Horace Randle in 1901.

You can see his picture and read details of his acceptance of Millennial Dawn further down this blog.

Wikipedia

The Wikipedia articles relevant to Jehovah’s Witnesses and related groups and personalities are incredibly inaccurate. We do not support their conclusions or the research behind them. While some sections contain no or few faults, Wikipedia cannot be relied on for consistently accuracy.  

This problem is endemic on Wikipedia. Neither Mr. Schulz nor myself allow our students to use it as a reference in any paper or assignment. Wikipedia is the habitation of religious trolls and abusive personalities who consider themselves “expert” but who are neither expert nor particularly talented.

The Russell's Baptism

Today someone commented on a post from 2009. They claimed that Storrs baptized the Russells in 1874. Because the comment is now burried in the archives, I'm posting my relpy here too:

There is no evidence that Storrs baptized the Russells. That is mere speculation. It's also wrong.

Storrs did not see water baptism as important. He wrote against it. Stetson, on the other hand, saw water baptism as vitally important.

There are three good candidates for personage who baptized the Russells. Storrs is not one of them.

While we're glad you read our blog, posting unfounded speculation as fact detracts from our efforts to document the real history. This claim is an example of many speculations given out as fact that find there place on Watch Tower history sites. It is without documentation. You swallowed it whole simply because you read it somewhere.

We are very skeptical historians. If we cannot document something, even if we belive it, we won't include it. This, Russell's "gold mine," claims about his fortune and business, and similar things are usually presented as fact but are at best speculation. Some of the claims made are lies.

Good history is a well documented, connected story. Your claim is fantasy fiction.

J. F. Rutherford's first book

I have the date 1895 in my files for this, but without consulting the Boonville Advertiser cannot verify that.

This is J F Rutherford’s first book. The forward reads (in part)

“It has been the aim and intention in the preparation of this book to give a brief analysis of the Laws of Missouri in a form easy to be comprehended by every one. THE ADVERTISER has had Mr. J.F. Rutherford, one of the leading members of the Boonville bar, to compile and arrange the laws herein. His fitness for such work is a guarantee of its usefulness to the farmers and business men.”

About a dozen different firms of lawyers are listed in the directory. JFR was part of WRIGHT AND RUTHERFORD, lawyers, Office in the Windsor Block.

The small book of about 128 pages was given away free with the Boonville Advertiser. It may have curiosity value, but has nothing to do with JFR’s later writings for the Watch Tower Society.

Pastor Russell in the Critics Den

Much reprinted picture that is found in some editions of Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens and also the Finished Mystery.

Russell v. T. T. Shields

Russell lectured in London, Ontario, in 1908. The Essex, New York, Free Press of February 28, 1906, reported:

Horace Randle - 1900

The sort of documentation we use ...

Letter from H. Randle, Missionary Doctor in China, resigning his appointment.

Our Research

We don’t post key material or chapter extracts here anymore. Because of harassment from some who believe all research into this subject is the province of a small group of men who primarily live on the American east coast but who felt free to ‘borrow’ our work without credit, we’ve moved all of our detailed research to a private, invitation only blog. This was not the only issue. You will find bits of our research on a web page that bills itself as the best short history of the Watch Tower took material from here and mixed it in with stupid, unfounded speculation and outright error.

Still, it may be worthwhile to tell those who still stop here where our research stands. We now have a significantly detailed, nearly finished (we’re waiting on a microfilm) chapter on Russell’s young years. It details his parent’s early years, his education, and his religious struggles. It contains details you will not know. It also puts the lie to most everything written by a recently published author who replaced research with imagination.

We present significant and new detail about Russell’s interactions with Adventists, age-to-come believers, Methodists and others. Almost none of this has been published before. It is drawn from original letters, contemporary magazines and the papers of the individuals involved. As with most of what you see on the internet, the commonly held picture is simply wrong. The story is in the details; we present the details.

We have a nearly 80 page chapter discussing the early Bible Study Group in Allegheny. We tell you what doctrines they accepted and why. We tell you whose books they read, who they corresponded with and what groups influenced them. You will find that the commonly held belief that they were primarily influenced by Adventists is wrong.

We have finished a detailing Russell’s entry into the Barbourite movement. This includes the most detailed biography of John Henry Paton found anywhere. Some of that is drawn from his private letters. We have one year of his diary. In this chapter we give you biographies of Benjamin Wallis Keith, and we include photos of him you will not have seen. We discuss S. H. Withington; you will probably have never heard of him. We profile L. A. Allen, one of the first Watch Tower contributors, and her father. We tell you of Lizzie Allen’s troubled life, taken from her own words. We tell you something of Avis M. Hamlin’s life. It’s almost certain you know nothing of her. Yet, she was important in the early years of Zion’s Watch Tower.

One of the most significant chapters details Russell’s early ministry with Barbour. We know where they preached, what their message was, who they met, what they said. This chapter draws on early newspaper articles, an issue of the Herald of the Morning almost no one has seen, and Russell’s own words.

We follow this with a chapter on the fruitage garnered by their ministry. Names that may appear only once or so in Zion’s Watch Tower are given biographies and put in their proper setting. These include Caleb Davies, a merchant from Cleveland, William I. Mann, an engineer and inventor, Joshua Tavender, an industrialist, J. C.Sunderlin, a Methodist minister and photographer, and others. Among the others is Arthur Adams, Methodist minister. We draw his story from pages of original archival material. This is a good place to observe that no matter how much you might want something, stealing from an archive is wrong. And if the person who stole Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return from the archive holding these papers has a conscience at all, he will return it. In this chapter we tell in Sunderlin’s own words about his opium addiction and how he overcame it. We draw parts of his story from letters he wrote. We own some of the originals. A number of seldom seen or never seen photos show up in each of these chapters.

The next chapter considers the aftermath of their 1878 failure and the separation into two movements. We note several times from original sources the lack of doctrinal unity and explain the significance of that.

I have summarized just the first few chapters. We continue to find new material, often thanks to interested parties. We have thousands of pages of new material. It came our way through the kind efforts of one of our blog readers. We’ve just arranged to acquire about seventy pages of original letters and such by one of the first Watch Tower missionaries in China. We have a poor quality photo of him and his wife and several of his children. So we continue to work. The real history is far different than we first believed.

We still consider requests to see the invitation only blog, but we tend to limit access to those who can help in some significant way. Curiosity alone may not get you access.

A Mystery?

 

Here is a mystery from a 1928 convention report. The Messenger for July 31, 1928, spread across pages 4 and 5 - The Bethel family at meal-time. You can see W E Van Amburgh and J F Rutherford at the head of tables on the far right of the picture. Below the center pillar is a young Nathan Knorr. Two figures directly below him on the table nearest the camera is a figure that has been drawn in. Who was in this seat originally? Was it just an empty space that someone decided to fill with a bit of art work? Whoever did the drawing gave the character hardly any shoulders.

I will grant readers that this is not the most important question in the world.

Brooklyn Eagle 1909

 

1913 Convention series booklet

 

A 16 page program of the train tour from 1913. The booklet lists all the places scheduled for meetings and gives some handy hints for travellers.

THE HOUSTON-DAVIDSON DEBATE Part 1

by "Jerome"

PREFACE

There are three posts on this subject which I have published in reverse order – simply so that readers can read them in the correct order. Inevitably, they will knock other material off the front pages of this blog, but readers can easily go to the archives to check past posts on other aspects of Watch Tower history.

This research started with a review of The Day of Vengeance published in ZWT (reprints 2278) which mentions a debate in north-east Scotland featuring Bible student Charles Houston and clergyman Donald Davidson. More on the actual debate is found in an earlier ZWT (reprints 1965). Houston shared in colporteur work, and his efforts in Scotland are also detailed in ZWT (reprints 1884).

Two local newspapers for Houston’s home area of Wick gave him considerably publicity. He organised wide distribution of the tract Do You Know? He also organised a series of public meetings. This attracted criticism that prompted Davidson, then minister of Canisbay Free Church, to challenge him to debate. The resulting event was reported in some detail.

The newspapers in question are not available on the internet, and the relevant issues could only be found in the Wick Public library. I am very grateful to the member of staff who checked four months of papers and sent me full scans of all the material. This is an excellent example for other libraries, which sometimes seem to delight in thwarting researchers’ efforts, especially those who cannot actually physically walk through the door. I transcribed all the newspaper references (which came to over 100 pages) and at the library’s request have sent them all the transcripts with a special introduction.

To get an overview, it would good to read through this introduction which follows. It should be noted that, since this was written for the library, it is designed for the general public rather than Watch Tower historians. It assumes that readers are not familiar with Zion’s Watch Tower, Pastor Russell, Millennial Dawn, future probation, etc. Hence, the explanations about beliefs and the personnel involved, and the attempt to maintain a neutral tone.

Following this preface and general introduction, the two separate transcriptions of the debate are reproduced in full.

All the other material – acrimonious correspondence trying to organise the debate, the aftermath, plus separate debates with local worthies on subjects like the trinity – has not been reproduced here. It would have swamped this blog with far too many pages. However, the whole story, totalling 114 pages, can be downloaded as a pdf free of charge from Lulu.com. Simply type in “Houston-Davidson debate” in the search box. Please feel free to copy on this download for any who may be interested.

Read. And I hope – enjoy!

INTRODUCTION

CHARLES NEAVE HOUSTON OF WICK – AN EARLY CONTROVERSIAL EVANGELIST

For the first four months of 1896, hardly an issue of the weekly John O’Groat Journal and the weekly Northern Ensign (both published in north-east Scotland) went by without a letter or a reference to one C N Houston – full name Charles Neave Houston. Houston, a draper in Wick, had become a convert to the Bible Student movement spearheaded by the writer Charles Taze Russell, who published a magazine Zion’s Watch Tower. The magazine still continues today, now named The Watchtower, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As an enthusiastic convert Houston took time out from his business to spread his new views, culminating in a public debate with the minister of Canisbay Free Church. This was reported in detail in the papers. The surrounding correspondence – often quite acrimonious – can be quite entertaining for a modern reader. In those days before instant communication, people were not prepared to wait a whole week before responding to comments they objected to. So, a letter in the John O’Groat Journal (published Fridays) would often be answered in the Northern Ensign (published Tuesdays) and vice versa.

Some background would be in order. From genealogical records, the business news in the Edinburgh Gazette, and then the actual correspondence in the JOGJ and NE, a little bit of Houston’s personal history can be established.

He was born in Canisbay in 1854. He was apprenticed to Peter MacKenzie, a draper in Wick, and ultimately married his daughter, Alice. No children are mentioned in his obituary. He eventually became sole proprietor of the drapery business in 1895.

He took a keen interest in religious matters. When the Pulteneytown Mission Hall was opened in 1887, as an appendage to the Wick Free Church, Charles Houston was reported as one of those giving an address at its first evangelistic meeting. But around 1893 (“some three years ago” as he expressed it in the February 1896 debate) Houston “saw the light” in what he called “that blessed book ‘Millennial Dawn.’”

His obituary mentioned that he had spent time in America where “he became acquainted with several thinkers and writers whose friendship he greatly valued.” This may have been connected with his interest or even his introduction to Zion’s Watch Tower and Millennial Dawn. Or he may have discovered this theology in Scotland. Russell’s evangelistic efforts had reached Scotland first in 1881 – when an American visitor J J Bender had hired boys to circulate over fifty thousand copies of Russell’s small book Food for Thinking Christians in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. Glasgow in particular became an early centre for what became the Bible Student movement. When Houston made an evangelical trip in 1895 he spoke of visiting “the friends” in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Russell expanded his original small book into a much larger one entitled The Plan of the Ages (later The Divine Plan of the Ages), first published in 1886. This became the first of a series known as Millennial Dawn.

As noted above, sometime in the early 1890s Houston came into contact with Millennial Dawn. He was well-known in his area, and his conversion attracted some attention. He cut down on business to make more time for circulating literature, including the aforementioned tour in 1895, which was written up in Zion’s Watch Tower. He arranged for a widespread tract distribution to promote his new views in his own area; and when Charles Russell suggested that supporters might organise public meetings, Houston did that as well.

The newspapers published fairly polite and neutral reviews of Houston’s efforts, but they attracted negative publicity from offended supporters of orthodoxy. A debate on the trinity ensued (Millennial Dawn did not support the trinity) – and feathers were ruffled. It was suggested that merchants should stick to selling their wares rather than becoming teachers, unless it was a plot to advertise the drapery business not available to competitors. As often happens in debates of this sort, Houston was also accused of misrepresenting his opponents’ position, setting up and demolishing straw men. This correspondence petered out as Houston’s opponents withdrew.

But the main controversy that drew the Reverend Mr Davidson into the fray was a doctrine commonly known as “future probation.” Millennial Dawn taught that countless dead would come back in a future resurrection to receive a chance of accepting Christ and gaining salvation. This was not the orthodox position, which dubbed Houston’s views as “second chance.” The argument then developed along familiar lines – one side insisting this was not a second chance but the real first chance for those affected. A variation on this as taught by Houston was that it was really a second chance for everyone, because everyone lost their first chance through the sin of Adam. The other side accused “Future Probationists” of being Universalists; then “Future Probationists” responded that this was not universal salvation, but universal opportunity. And so on. Questions that orthodoxy would sometimes sidestep by saying that it was not for us to know, were answered with irritating certainty by the non-orthodox.

Houston and Davidson met for the first time in the local newspaper offices in Wick. Houston was accused of spreading Millennial Dawn theology amongst Davidson’s flock by paying a man to circulate a tract called Do You Know? Houston not only agreed he had done this, but was adamant he would continue to do so. The tract in question carried the imprimatur – “’Millennial Dawn’ had done more for me as a Christian, and to make the Bible clear to me, than all other books and pamphlets combined. I will supply this Society’s tracts free, and the book mentioned at one shilling, or the reading of it free – C.N. HOUSTON, Wick.’

Houston was quite unrepentant and the exchange between the two men was described as “exceedingly vehement and declamatory.”

However, it was agreed that a debate could take place. For weeks thereafter the two men wrangled through the pages of the newspapers on the exact wording of the debate. Houston wanted to debate the doctrine called the “ransom”. This was too general for Davidson, who wanted to pin Houston down to exact Yes and No answers on matters where Houston believed he needed to give qualified answers. Eventually, they hit on a formula acceptable – just about – to both men, and the debate finally took place on Wednesday, February 26^th, 1896, at the Canisbay Free Church where Davidson was minister.

Both the John O’Groat Journal and the Northern Ensign sent reporters. And the two accounts give quite a full picture of what went on. The church of course was full of Davidson’s supporters, quite capable of cheering their man and booing and hissing Houston. Modern readers can make up their own minds on the balance of truth and error expressed on the occasion, but I think it is fair to state that Houston (a bit of a Daniel in a lion’s den) held his own very well. Davidson actually seemed to run out of steam – running short on his allotted time, and eventually declining to argue further, saying that others could debate Houston – there were subjects on which he, Davidson, would not dream of commenting, whereas Houston seemed to have all the answers (even if all the wrong answers as Davidson saw it).

In the aftermath, one paper published an anonymous write-up that gave Houston lavish praise and strongly criticised Davidson. Unsurprisingly, Houston sent the clipping to America to Charles Taze Russell who published it in full in his journal. Houston was also quick to complain that a long list of worthy gentlemen who had put their name to a document condemning Millennial Dawn had now admitted they had never read the book in question – other than selective quotes as provided by Davidson and taken out of context.

Ultimately, and fairly quickly, the newspapers’ correspondents grew tired of the subject and asked for a line to be drawn.

Charles Houston might have become quite well known in the fledgling (Millennial Dawn) Bible Student movement had he not died quite unexpectedly from pneumonia in December 1902 in his late 40s. The newspapers gave a sympathetic obituary. They mentioned his earlier religious affiliations, and a friend took the main funeral service, with support from several local clergy. His funeral did not take place in a church but rather in his house. He was buried in the Wick New Cemetery.

Note on spelling, punctuation and paragraphing etc.

I have decided to let the formatting stand as originally printed. In the actual transcriptions of the debates there is occasional inconsistency in capitalisation for He, Him etc. when talking about God or Christ. This would be down to the reporter, who is trying to make sense of shorthand notes on a subject he may not properly understand. And as often happened in newspapers of the time, there are very long passages where paragraphing is non-existent. However, if readers in Scotland could understand the printed page as presented in 1896, I am sure modern readers can do the same. And spelling has not been adjusted. It is generally very good, but is of course UK spelling rather than US spelling. So any American readers will have to get used to “centre” “honour” etc.