James

This material is a proposed chapter for a future book on the History of the Russell family.

As with the previous extract (see post from January 28) comments are welcome, either here or send back-channel to Jerome.

The Aunt Sarah document that is the starting point for this article can be examined here in an earlier draft of this material:

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-russell-family-tree.html

    

     James was the oldest of the ten children of James Russell and Fannie Grier who survived to adulthood, and was born c.1796. His register of death from 1847 simply states that he came from Ireland. He will have been one of the first to go to America if not THE first, paving the way for others. His history, as given by Aunt Sarah, suggests a possible trail-blazer, a patriarch of the family, but he ended up in Pittsburgh and died comparatively young, five years before CTR was born. Aunt Sarah tells us that James married Sarah Ann Risk. We learn elsewhere in the document that the Risk family were Episcopalians in Faun, Ireland (which is most likely Fahan in County Donegal), and father George Risk (married to a Sarah) was an excise officer. We also note from the history of Alexander Russell, who we will come to later, but who married Sarah Ann’s sister, Margaret, that James and Sarah were already a married couple in America in Elmwood Hill, New York, by 1832.

     James’ history gives a field for more research. Quoting directly from Aunt Sarah:

“James was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, conducted his Collegiate and Commercial Institute at Elmwood Hill, Bloomingdale, N.Y. now included in Central Park near West 103^rd Street.”

     So he started his education in Dublin but then “conducted” an institute in New York.

     Trinity College, Dublin, was founded in 1592. Famous alumni include James Ussher (he of Bible chronology), literary figures like Jonathan Swift, Oliver Goldsmith and later Oscar Wilde, philosophers like Edmund Burke, and statesmen like Eamon de Valera. it was specifically founded as an educational institution for Protestants who supported the established church. That meant Anglicans; non-conformists like Presbyterians would have issues.  However, James was to take the faith of his wife and her family and become Episcopalian. As for Roman Catholics, they were basically barred by a required oath until 1793. Matters were then relaxed somewhat and religious tests were abolished by Act of Parliament in 1873, at which point the Irish Catholic Bishops banned their flock from enrolling. The matter was not finally resolved until 1970.

     By the time James enrolled Protestants of all shapes and sizes could attend. The original emphasis on theology gradually broadened to include a whole range of subjects, including mathematics, medicine, law, science and engineering.

     The enrolment records for Trinity have survived. Examining lists of those who enrolled between 1803 and 1829 (which are in two volumes covering 1803-1814, 1815-1829) there are twenty Russells in total on the books – but only one James.

     This solitary James was entered for enrolment on 3 November 1823 and “put on the books” as the register puts it, on 22 November 1823. His tutor is listed as W. Harte.

     At this time, if this was OUR James he would have been in his late twenties. One might expect the James Russell in Aunt Sarah’s account to have attended college a little earlier in life. However, this is the only James found in extant enrolment records for Trinity College, and they do appear to be very comprehensive. It seems likely that James returned to Ireland from America for a short while for some of his education. As we will see when discussing Alexander Turney Stewart in the chapter on Charles Tays Russell, some people did travel back and forth across the Atlantic at this time if they had good enough reason to do so.

     According to Aunt Sarah the institute that James was involved with was called the Collegiate and Commercial Institute at Elmwood Hill, Bloomingdale, New York. There were some name changes over two decades but always with James G Russell at the helm.

     The New York papers, particularly The Evening Post ran a prospectus and advertisement for this for a good number of years. On the next page is one example, taken from the paper for 10 September 1835. As the reproduction is quite small, the details will be reviewed on following pages.

     The school had been established at its present location for the past eight years. That would take us back to around 1827.

     It was a boarding school for young boys. There were four classes covering four years, and the wide range of subjects included: Spelling, Reading, Writing, Mathematics (including book-keeping), Geography, Elocution, Mythology, Astronomy, and History (particularly of the United States). If a young person stayed to the final year they could enjoy:

 “Logic, Belle Lettres, Natural and Moral Philosophy, Chymistry (sic), Political Economy, with an explanation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of New York.”

     There were extra charges for those who needed Greek, Latin, French, Spanish and Drawing. The terms per annum were not cheap but did include “Board, Tuition, Washing and Mending.”

     To offer these services for four classes, which one assumes ran concurrently, would require the hiring of staff.

     The principal (James G Russell of Elmwood Hill) explained the regime:

“It is exclusively a Boarding School; and no pupils are admitted but such as will board and reside in the family, and under the constant supervision of the principal, and pursue the prescribed course under his immediate direction. The discipline of the school is mild and parental, but sufficiently energetick (sic) to secure the performance of the prescribed duties; but it has been a favourite object to dispense with corporeal punishment, and substitute the incentive of emulation, a sense of honour, duty and propriety. Principles of piety and morality are constantly inculcated without interfering with the tenets of any particular sect. The family of the principal, and the pupils, attend the Episcopal Church.”

     It noted in passing that “a small item is charged for pew rent.”

     One trusts that this was a step-up from Dotheboys Hall in Charles Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby.

     Of particular interest is the announcement that ran at the end of the advertisement for many years that those who wanted a prospectus or more information could obtain such from Messrs. A.T. Stewart and Co., 257 Broadway. We will see when discussing Charles Tays Russell that his obituary has him working either with or for Stewart when he came to America. There was obviously a long connection between Alexander Turney Stewart and some of the Russell family, even if we can’t join all the dots today.

     The advertisements for a New York boarding school featuring James G Russell go right back to 1820. James would have been about 25 years old at the time.

     The first known appearance of James was in The Evening Post for 9 June 1820.

     The heading was ACADEMY AT STATEN ISLAND and it announced its opening. It offered the usual subjects and noted that:

“A limited number of young gentlemen, not exceeding 12 years of age, can be accommodated with boarding, washing and mending in the family of the teacher.”

     The location was on the northeast side of Staten Island. James’ hype concluded:

The local situation of the academy, in point of beauty, convenience, and salubrity of air, is surpassed by none. The subscriber flatters himself that the above advantages, joined to his own exertions, to promote the improvement and regulate the morals of those committed to his care, shall entitle him to a share of the public patronage.”

     It was signed JAMES G. RUSSELL and had references from a Naval Officer and two Health Officers.

     It looked very much like a start-up operation. However, the date does suggest that James was the first of his generation to travel to America, therefore able to help younger family members when they arrived. Charles Tays Russell, for example, was only about 16 years old when he made the trip in 1822.

     By 1824 James’s Academy had moved to the “rear of the Dutch Church” and was advertised as a “Boarding School at Bloomingdale.” (The Evening Post for 7 May 1924; unless otherwise indicated, all further references to James’ school will be from this paper).

     In 1825 (9 May 1825) it was “J. G. Russell’s Boarding School” which was “now open for the accommodation of six or eight young Gentlemen.”

     The advertisements then disappeared for nearly two years, which may supports the assumption that James went back to the old country to do courses at Trinity College, Dublin.

    When James reappeared in 1827 (3 April 1827) he announced a relocation of his Boarding school, and revealed his “object is to establish a s  elect school, exclusively for boarders, the number of whom is limited to 20.”

     The idea of the school being “select” – with a specific class of clientele as a target – comes over in the promise:

“French and Spanish are taught by a highly approved teacher, who is detained as a permanent resident in the family, with a view to render the French, as much as practicable, the language of the family.”

     Again, it sounds very much like a start-up venture, or a re-start-up. It ties in with his 1935 announcement (already reviewed) that the school had operated in its present form for the past eight years.

     By 1930 (27 November 1830) it had become ELMWOOD HILL JUVENILE INSTITUTE  with James G, Russell as principal, and was now linked to Mr A T Stewart’s premises at 257 Broadway.

   The 1931 advertisement (28 May 1831) show the number accommodated to have risen to about 40, with extensive enlargements underway to expand further. By now it sounds like a success story.

    In 1932 (21 September 1832) the name changed again Now it was ELMWOOD HILL BOARDING SCHOOL (Six miles from City Hall, New York). James noted for prospective new clients:

“The number of pupils and limited and select, and none are admitted but such as reside with the family of the principal, with whom they fare at a common board, and by whom they are treated in all respects as children in a well regulated and Christian family.”

     By 1834 (6 August 1834), yet more improvements to the buildings made it possible to expand the business and accommodate additional pupils. Circulars with more information were still available from A T Stewart’s emporium.

     The 1835 advertisement has already been reproduced in full and discussed above. By now the name Aunt Sarah remembered, ELMWOOD HILL COLLEGIATE AND COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE was featured and remained in place (with just one slight tweak) for the rest of its history.

     So James G  Russell’s Collegiate and Commerical Institute was a success story, pitching its services to the wealthier classes who could afford the ever increasing fees.

     As noted earlier, Aunt Sarah’s source document gave a brief snapshot for James in 1832. He is well established in America, married to his own Sarah and living in Elmwood Hill, New York. Aunt Sarah records that:

“James and Sarah having no children ‘adopted’ Thomas Russell, son of (his brother) Alexander.”

     This Thomas Russell was born in 1833.

     It would appear that young Thomas joined the family of boarders at the Elmwood Hill School.

     James’ history leaves a number of questions for which we may never have the answers. Why did he start a Boarding school in 1920? Why was it in New York? Once the school was up and running it should have been quite profitable, but how was he able to fund such a venture initially?

     It all seems to have come to an abrupt end in 1840. The advertisements for the Elmwood establishment suddenly disappeared in May 1840, never to return.

     The final advertisement had a slight change of title:

     The reference to “the last ten years” suggests yet another change of venue from back in 1830. As always, more information was available from A T Stewart’s.

     But for all its appearance of a flourishing going concern, that was it.

     What happened next we do not know. We assume this might be when James and Sarah moved from New York to Pittsburgh, to join his younger brother, Charles Tays. We don’t know why they moved and we don’t know what they did when they got there. Was the master plan to start another school, or did James just work for his brother? We do know that he and Sarah returned to New York at one point but both were to die in the Pittsburgh area.

     As far as Pittsburgh was concerned, the first fairly positive sighting of James was in 1843.

     On Monday, 16 October 1843 The Pittsburgh Daily Post newspaper published a list of letters waiting at the Post Office for collection. It was a new feature of the newspaper that, regrettably for researchers, had only started that year.

     In the paper for 16 October, and repeated over the next two days, there was a letter waiting for James.

     We can reasonably assume this is the James who is married to Sarah. Next to him in the list, also with a letter to collect, is his brother, Joceph (sic) L(ytle) Russell. A few weeks later in the issue for 18 November 1843 the list included Charles T(ays) Russell, so it appears that all three brothers were in Pittsburgh together by 1843. We will return to Joseph and Charles later.

     James evidently intended Pittsburgh to be became a permanent home because in 1846 he bought one of the first grave plots to go on the market in the new Allegheny Cemetery. He obviously had sufficient funds to do this. He and his extended family were going to stay there. Forever. Literally.

     However, before this happened, there was one final try back in New York. From The Evening Post for 2 October 1845.

     James called himself “a graduate of a distinguished University” and offered accommodation for six boys in his own home at 227 Fulton Street, Brooklyn. It was almost a repeat of his first advertisement back in 1820. And the contact for more information was still A T Stewart and Co., Broadway, NY.

     It may be that declining health for both James and Sarah was why this last try was short lived. Within a little over a year Sarah would be dead, and in a little over two years, so would James. They would die in the Pittsburgh area and be buried in the plot James had bought in 1846 at the Allegheny Cemetery.

Insert material on the Allegheny cemetery and the Russell family plot. Adapted from:

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-russells-and-allegheny-cemetery.html

     The Allegheny Cemetery charter laid down strict legal provisions for inheritance of family plots. They would first go to children (James and Sarah did not have any) then to parents (who are assumed to be long dead in the old country), and then to brothers and sisters. Over the years ownership of the plot would pass first to James’ brother Charles, and then to his brother Joseph and finally to his son, CTR.

     In summary: of Thomas and Fanny Russell’s ten children who lived to adulthood, James appears as the oldest, the firstborn. He may have been a pioneer, perhaps the first of the family to travel to America, specifically to New York. By Aunt Sarah’s account he was well educated. By his own testimony he was “a graduate of a distinguished University.” What might he have accomplished had he lived? But sadly, he was to die comparatively young, several years before CTR was born. Hence, he was to be forgotten by history.

Can we identify date and place

 This is an undated convention photo. It appears to be a UK convention, late 1930s or early 1940s. Can you identify it further?

An extract...

 ...from a potential future book on the Russell’s Family History.

     The aim of this extract is to very briefly trace why a family like the Russells ended up in America as they did.

     Comments welcome on whether it all makes sense (or not) and whether the narrative –as far as it goes – accurately describes the passage of history.

     Leave a comment here or send back-channel to Jerome.

 

THE ROAD TO PITTSBURGH

     To be Presbyterian and Scottish-Irish in 19^th century America meant that your family would have followed a certain well-trodden (and somewhat nomadic) path in history.

     We will start in Ireland – specifically what is now known as Northern Ireland.

     Historically, Russell – whether as a forename or a surname – goes back to the Norman Conquest and may be linked to a place in Calvados, Normandy, called Rosel or Rozel. It also may be derived from an Anglo-Norman nickname from Old French for red-haired. As we will see later, in Irish history it is recognised as a Protestant name. There were many Russells in what is today known as Northern Ireland at the start of the 19^th century. Other common names in the region at the time were Lytle (sometimes spelled as Lytel and which is thought to comes originally from Little) and Tay or Tays (possibly named after the Scottish River Tay). As an alternative explanation the Ulster Historical Foundation has suggested that the surname “Tease” which was common in the area (perhaps from the River Tees in England’s Durham and Yorkshire region) could sound like “Tays” when said with a strong Ulster accent.

    It was common for surnames, perhaps of mothers, to be preserved as the middle name for a new generation. This helps explain names like Joseph Lytle Russell and Charles Tays Russell with its variant spelling Charles Taze. This can also assist in tracing a family tree backwards. It was also common, as it is today, for forenames to be repeated in families down the generations. Of course, when people had large families, they soon ran out of repeatable forenames.

     As noted above, the Russell family were of Scots or Scottish-Irish ancestry; early records using the term Scotch-Irish ancestry. We will try and standardise our usage hereafter with the older expression Scotch-Irish, simply because that was the term in general use during CTR’s lifetime.

     This links this Irish population with Scotland if you go further back in history. It also links them with the Presbyterian Church.

     The Reformation was never a clear-cut affair. While England broke away from the Catholic Church in the time of Henry VIII and the Church of England formed in 1534, in places like Scotland their reformation began in 1560 with the influence of John Calvin and the local John Knox.

     The Scottish model became Presbyterian, referring particularly to how the church was controlled and how much the civil authorities were involved in governance. In the Church of England the State was involved with church appointments, but at one point the Scottish church abolished the position of bishop and threw out the Church of England’s prayer book.

     As events played out, there was a lot of pressure on Presbyterians to join the Church of England, and this caused some from the Scottish Lowlands and also Northern England to emigrate from the 17^th century onward. In addition, the Highland Clearances of the 18^th century forced many others in Scotland to leave their homes. The British Government was keen to encourage these people to move to Ireland with land grants like the Plantations of Ulster from the early 17th century onward. Of course, land grants for an incoming population would result in the displacing of some of the existing population.

     Short-term it met two objectives. On the one hand it damped down tensions and poverty in Scotland and the Borders, and on the other a Protestant and English speaking settler community would help dilute both the language and Catholic faith of the native Irish in the area. Other events would shape the intervening years, but long-term it would contribute to a civil war and the country partitioned. Today we have the north loyal to the British Crown and the south independent. The political consequences of those 17^th and 18^th century decisions still rumble on today.

     The Protestant communities that subsequently developed in the north of Ireland were Presbyterian for the most part from their Scottish roots. As economic conditions became difficult in this new homeland a number decided to move on again. For many, the “promised land” was America. The term Scotch-Irish eventually came to be used in America to identify this wave of Protestant immigrants. It distinguished them from the large numbers who came from Ireland a little later because of the potato famine. The latter were predominantly Roman Catholic.

     It is very easy to merge all those who emigrated into one group, but that would be wrong. Zydek’s book Charles Taze Russell, The Man and His Message, paints a vivid picture of the coffin ships that brought hundreds of thousands of starving Irish to America. It is well written, but Zydek assumes that this is how Charles TAYS Russell reached America as the first of his clan to make the journey, and gives the date as 1838.

     However, both the timing and the geography are wrong. We will see that the first known wave of Russells to hit American shores came around 1820, and the really vast crowd of starving Irish refugees arrived over twenty years later. Although there would be overlap, generally they were from different parts of Ireland. As already noted, the Russells were from the north of the country. The potato famine that overwhelmed the country started in 1845 and was particularly disastrous for the rural poor who were mainly in the west and south – and Catholic.

     Population growth, absentee landlords, tenant farmers having to split their land into thousands of smallholdings, all meant that subsistence farming had to rely on potatoes. It was the only crop that could just about feed a family off the land. It was a disaster waiting to happen. When the crop failed due to potato blight, it is estimated that a million died from starvation. Over a ten-year period more than two million left the country, many going to America.

     Those who were part of the earlier diaspora like the Russells may have come originally from Scotland, or they may simply have been lumped into that catch-all Scotch-Irish title. Either way, they were Protestants – Presbyterians – who lived in the region of County Donegal (from Charles Tays Russell’s grave marker) and Londonderry (from Joseph Lytle Russell’s newspaper obituary). Donegal and Londonderry border on each other. Today Donegal is the northernmost county in the Republic of Ireland, and Londonderry (often shortened to Derry) is one of the six counties of Northern Ireland.

     A key industry in what we now call Northern Ireland was the production of Irish linen. The climate and soil were suitable for the growing of flax, and French Huguenot refugees brought their weaving skills to the country in the late 17^th century. It became a huge cottage industry, especially when the British opposed the Irish woollen industry as a commercial threat. But in the early part of the 19^th century hand-spinning production faced severe competition from factory machine-spinning as the industrial revolution trampled all before it. Even so, prior to the First World War, Belfast in the north was still the largest linen-producing area in the whole world, and had the nickname, “Linenopolis.” But changing times and uncertainties of the 19^th century would cause some in the industry to look to America, both for markets and a home. So we have Charles Tays Russell, who reportedly came to America to work with Irish-born Alexander Turney Stewart. Stewart founded a dry goods empire which included importing Irish fabrics, before later cleaning up making uniforms for the Union side in the American Civil War. There will be more about Charles Tays later. One step further on from importing and selling linen we have Charles Tays’ one-time business partner – his brother Joseph Lytle Russell, establishing a dry goods store – a business that was expanded in due course with his son, CTR. The location of Pittsburgh, with its grime and industry, made the selling of shirts a reasonable commercial prospect.

Record of Christian Work, May 1919, page 316. (For Comment)

"Russellism has a wide advertisement in the South. It takes away the Christ of Scripture, denies salvation by faith, and encourages men to live in sin. That it makes headway is a reflection on the intelligence of the South and  the adequacy of the teaching in our pulpits."  

UPDATED. 

Comments on the significance of these quotations for Watch Tower history are wanted.

Christian Evidence Society Report, 1922 

Birmingham Diocese 

Our Diocesan Hon. Sec., Rev. F. Mellows, M.A., writes: 

As last year, our Diocesan Evangelistic Council has undertaken the responsibility of keeping an eye on any Atheistic propaganda, and has organised services in several of the Parks. 'Russellism' has gained some adherents, and the supporters of this heresy have spent a good deal of money in propaganda. I have given several lectures on the subject, and spoken about it at meetings. I have also written a pamphlet, ' Russellism-The Latest Blasphemy' (published by C. J. Thynne, Whitefriars' Street, E.C. 4). 

Just now we are having a course of lectures on open-air work, which are being very well attended." – Page 26 

Chelmsford Diocese 

A course of lectures has been given at the Parish Church, Pitsea, by the Rector, on "Christianity as Opposed to Modern isms"Christian Science, Spiritualism, Russellism, Theosophy, Christadelphianism, Mormonism, and Modernism (of the left Wing)showing their errors with regard to the Nature of God, Divinity of Jesus, Personality of the Spirit, Sin and Atonement. These have been greatly appreciated. 

The Chapter Meeting of West Ham Rural Deanery has now formed an Evidence Committee, to perpetuate the work of the Secretary, around that Deanery. He (the Secretary) deeply regrets having to give up speaking at Hyde Park and Highbury Corner, for the Central Society owing to the distance at which he is now living and the unsatisfactory state of the train service, but he is using every opportunity of bringing the work of the Society before the Orset and Grays Deanery. 

E. W. GREVATT, Secretary for the Diocese. – Page 43

Alton Bay 1876 or 1878

 Can we identify these men?

November 1916

     

A snapshot from the time of CTR’s funeral has recently come to light. The picture below comes from Mike C. On the back of photo it reads: “Gone Home – Pastor Russell’s grave.”

Brian K has flattened the picture to get the best possible result.

     Leroy has then used AI to present a colorized version. Obviously with AI there is some guesswork about the colors, but it brings the picture more to life.

     So when was this picture, with its absence of people, taken?

     The picture shows the flower arrangements which include the inscription “Holy Bible” and also “2 Tim 4:7,8.” The whole arrangement is no longer in the best of condition.

     This indicates that the picture most likely dates from the day AFTER the official funeral service on 6 November 1916, which would be 7 November 1916.

     The actual graveside funeral service took place at sundown. The known photographs of the casket arriving at the graveside with a heavily veiled Maria Russell walking behind are dark and also a little blurred. This is because they would need to place a camera on a tripod or a secure flat surface and use a long exposure (anything from one to five seconds) to get an image.

     The above photograph is obviously taken in daylight, and would have been an “instantaneous” photo of about 1/25 to 1/60 second duration. Consumer cameras of the day did not have setting for shutter speed. They were either “bulb” or “instantaneous.” (With thanks to Brian K for the information).

     So what happened? By the time the graveside service ended it would have been dark. There may have been safety concerns about lowering a coffin into the grave in these circumstances. Perhaps more to the point, the details in the St Paul Enterprise show that the casket was buried in its packing case (which is what I believe we see in the photograph) and the whole was encased in a strong layer of concrete. This work was performed by John Adam Bohnet. To do this would have taken some time and would need daylight.

     So it appears that after the funeral service, the mourners eventually left, and with a guard posted the casket remained above ground until the next morning, when the photograph of the wilting flower arrangements was taken.

     There is one photograph which supports this. The photo below shows the gravesite on what we assume is the following morning.

     This picture was reproduced in the St Paul Enterprise, but the print quality is poor and is not helped by the material only now being available on microfilm. But AI and colorization can help us a bit.

     Again with thanks to Leroy for the improved picture.

     We are looking down the hillside to the gravesite. Behind is the Wible/Wiebel farmhouse which was then the home of John Adam Bonhet and the office of the cemetery company.

     The cluster of white grave markers at the bottom of the hill is missing today. However, it appears these were not markers for actual burials, but merchandise sold by the United Cemeteries Company. Only two small areas were reserved for Bible Students, the bulk of the cemetery was sold for general use and like most cemeteries it provided a full service.

     For more information on the United Cemeteries including more on the funeral of CTR, see this post.

     https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2024/12/grave-matters.html

With grateful thanks to those who provided the pictures and much of the information for this article.

Difference

 A major point of controversy between Watch Tower adherents and Clergy was their understanding of prophecy. Here is an advertisement from the January/February 1926 Peoples' Christian Bulletin.

Research Assistance Needed

 I need biographical and other detailed information:

*** w79 10/1 p. 9 The Light of Truth Shines in Belgium ***

Motivated by deep love for fellow humans and a keen desire to declare the “good news” to all kinds of people, Charles Taze Russell visited Belgium in the autumn of 1891, during a tour of Europe. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, realized the people’s need for spiritual freedom, as they were still in dense religious darkness. For most of them, Bible reading was forbidden, and they lived in fear of hellfire and in reverential awe of the parish priest.

Ten years later, a lover of justice living in the region of Charleroi began to brave the superstitious dread associated with reading God’s Word. As soon as he had obtained the first two volumes of Millennial Dawn, this man, J. B. Thilmant, organized a family Bible study. Soon the “good news” was spreading to other towns and even to France, thanks to the courageous work of the Thilmant family.

The Trials of Jonas

     We will all be familiar with CTR’s brief description of his contact with Jonas Wendell. From the booklet A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings (1894) page 95 (Special edition of Zion’s Watch Tower for 25 April 1894) we read:

 “Among other theories, I stumbled upon Adventism. Seemingly by accident, one evening I dropped into a dusty, dingy hall, where I had heard religious services were held, to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches.

There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists from the preacher, Mr. Jonas Wendell, long since deceased. Though his Scripture exposition was not entirely clear, and though it was very far from what we now rejoice in, it was sufficient, under God, to re-establish my wavering faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and to show that the records of the apostles and prophets are indissolubly linked. What I heard sent me to my Bible to study with more zeal and care than ever before.”

     There had been a similar comment made about 15 years before, in the supplement issued with the first issue of Zion’s Watch Tower sent TO THE READERS OF THE HERALD OF THE MORNING and dated June 1879. This gave slightly different details:

“I have been a Bible student since I first had my attention called to the second coming of our Lord, by Jonas Wendell, a Second Advent Preacher, about 1869, who was then preaching the burning of the world as being due in 1873. But though he first awakened my interest on the subject, I was not a convert, either to the time he suggested nor to the events he predicted. I, in company with others in Pittsburgh, organized and maintained a Bible class for the searching of the Scriptures, meeting every Sunday.”

     In spite of the disclaimers, Jonas obviously made an impression on CTR. So in this article we are going to try and understand the human Jonas which may account in some part to the effect he had on CTR.

     Jonas Wendell (1815-1873) was a family man. He married Jane Gilmore (1823-1909) and they had one son, Daniel Gilmore Wendell (1839-1914). Some sources erroneously give a second child, daughter Emily, but this is a misreading of the 1870 census. Emily was Daniel’s wife and all four were living at the same address in Edinboro on census day. Daniel’s daughter Cora married and lived in Edinboro with her family until her death in 1928. The family subsequently moved away to Florida. There is a Wendell family plot with memorials in the Edinboro cemetery.

     For a detailed review of Jonas’ life and evolving theology and also his links with other key players like Nelson Barbour, see Separate Identity volume 1, pp.65-82.

     Like Nelson Barbour, Jonas was very keen on date setting for the return of Christ. The failure of his expectations for 1854 caused a dip in his activities as shown by official records. In the 1850 census he was a clergyman in Oswego, New York. Following the 1854 failure he settled his family in Edinboro. In the 1860 census he was a grocer in Edinboro, and in the 1866 tax assessment lists he was a lawyer. But then his faith was renewed and by the 1870 census he was back as “clergy.” He also had a new date to promote, 1873. How he did this we will come to later.

     Jonas and his contemporaries were all very human, with human frailties, but they were imbued with a mission and weren’t going to let setbacks deter them. Whatever we may feel about the details of their beliefs today, they lived them and expended themselves, often to a premature end.

     So what trials did Jonas face?

     We are going to look at three: physical difficulties, financial setbacks, and scandal.

     The thought of physical difficulties comes over in the Advent Christian Church paper The World’s Crisis for 5 May 1869. This carried a letter from H A King then of Nevada, Ohio, about Jonas’ work organising regular meetings and mentioned that he had a physical disability. Several (actually six) wished to get baptised but Jonas couldn’t do this on his own because he only had the use of one arm. Whether this was temporary or a more permanent problem is not known.

     Of particular interest is the location where this happened in March of 1869, Pittsburgh.

     Physical issues would affect Jonas later. In August 1873, he suffered a serious fall down a flight of stairs in Edinboro. His obituary by George Stetson in The World’s Crisis for 10 September 1873 detailed this, and how he soldiered on before overtaxing himself helping someone with a “fickly horse” and collapsing and dying a week later at the age of 67.

     Trials also included financial setbacks. From The World’s Crisis for 13 January 1869:

     Wendell’s horse died and he had to ask his fellow believers for help. Two of the names who came to his aid might be familiar. Daniel Cogswell’s name appeared on the cover of early issues of Nelson Barbour’s Herald of the Morning. And Ira Allen appears in Zion’s Watch Tower for November 1880 helping to arrange a visit from CTR, and his daughter Lizzie wrote for the magazine and later for John Paton’s World’s Hope.

     It serves as a reminder that so many of the players in those early days knew each other.

     A trial of a far different kind happened in 1871. This was scandal. A very public accusation of immorality was made against Jonas involving a girl who had been released from a “House of Refuge” after his intervention. We will explore this in some detail.

     It appears that a girl named Mary Terry had relatives in Edinboro and, for whatever reason, was committed to what was called the “House of Refuge.” Jonas knew of the case and secured her release, giving guarantees of good conduct and according to other reports helping her find employment. His status as a minister and at least some knowledge of the law likely helped him do this. So far so good. But then the girl went on her travels – sometimes on her own, sometimes with another girl - no doubt using the railroads to do so, and at some point it was claimed that Jonas had offered to run off with her to Pittsburgh.

AI image generated by Leroy with thanks

 One of the less slanted reports, although with no guarantee of accuracy in the detail, came from The Pittsburgh Commercial for 31 May 1871, page 4.

     Jonas was described as 60 at the time, a nice round figure for a philandering clergyman. Actually he was 55, but no doubt looked 60. He was old. He was a minister. He was a married man. The girl was a sweet vulnerable 16 year old, pretty, but perhaps “somewhat simple minded.” If you were eager for salacious scandal, what more could you ask for? In reality, as we will see later, rather than an unworldly “sweet sixteen” Mary was a more traveled 19 year old at the time.

     If The Pittsburgh Commercial used a certain restraint that wasn’t the case when the story broke elsewhere. Various by-line writers had a field day, veering between a sinful clergyman and an elderly seducer, and sometimes combining the two. For example (all cuttings dated 29 May 1871): The Cincinnati Enquirer, A MINISTER ARRESTED FOR ADULTERY; The St Louis Republic, A SINFUL ADVENTIST; The Courier-Journal, A TREACHEROUS SHEPHERD; The Washington Daily Patriot, ANOTHER REVEREND SEDUCER; The Cleveland Leader, A REVERENT SCAPEGRACE; The Appeal-Democrat, AN OLD AND REVEREND SINNER; The Evansville Journal, A SHAMEFUL FORNICATOR; and The St Louis Globe-Democrat, AN AGED LOTHARIO ARRESTED.

     Even if Jonas were guilty, one can feel sympathy for his wife, Jane, and the rest of the family in Edinboro. But as events were to prove, he wasn’t.

     However, it was hardly a surprise that most popular newspapers weren’t that interested in a clergyman cleared of wrongdoing, so very few carried the sequel.

     Once the “crime” was brought to public attention events moved swiftly. Jonas was detained in Erie, Pennsylvania, and brought back to Edinboro. The girl was a little more difficult to find. As noted above she had been traveling from place to place and “after a tedious search” was finally tracked down. Like Jonas she was brought back to Edinboro.

     Faced with the enormity of the situation, she either recanted or claimed she’d never made the accusation in the first place. To its credit, The Pittsburgh Commercial for 1 June 1871 carried the news:

     Quote: “(Mary Terry) makes affidavit that the charges made against Mr. Wendell are entirely without foundation.” Jonas was cleared.

     Interestingly, in the aftermath the girl was not blamed. A week later the same paper noted that Wendell had been completed vindicated and blamed an unnamed “personal enemy” for the story. From The Pittsburgh Commercial for 7 June 1871:

     A retraction of the accusation was noted in the editor’s journal column in The Advent Christian Times for 4 July 1871:

“The man who published the scandal has corrected it before the public and done what could be done to retrieve the wrong.”

     So what do we know about Mary Terry?  She’d had family in Edinboro, that was how Jonas came to hear of her, and in her travels the papers noted she had relatives in Rouseville. Existing records suggest she was born Mary Anna Terry in Chester, Pennsylvania, in November 1852.

     As already observed, she had been placed in a House of Refuge. We will show later that this was specifically the House of Refuge in Pittsburgh.

     The concept of Refuge might suggest a haven for the needy, but in reality this was part of the penal system.

     According to The Jeffersonian of 1 June 1854, page 1, the Pittsburgh House of Refuge was opened in 1854, and was for (quote) “infants under the age of twenty-one years, committed to their custody by two Judges...on complaint and proof made to them by the parent, guardian, or next friend of such infant...that said infant is unmanageable or a vagrant, and has no parent or guardian capable and willing to restrain, manage and take proper care of such infant.”

     The Sunbury American for 23 February 1856 noted that two years after opening “the House of Refuge...now contains 135 inmates. It noted that “the directors state that the institution exerts a salutary effect upon the minds and deportment of viciously disposed youths.”

     The institution moved out of the Pittsburgh area in the mid-1870s. The Official Report on the move dated May 13-16, 1874 was in The Third Annual Report of the National PRISON Association of the United States (capitals mine).This noted “it is to be removed from Allegheny City, where it is cooped up within very restricted premises enclosed by massive stone walls, to a large and splendid farm...in Washington County.”

     The report included comments from the superintendent, one Reverend R N Avery: “We demand implicit obedience and we always obtain it.” He qualified his comment by saying “That strict discipline does not interfere with the happiness of the children is evident from the cheerfulness which characterizes our whole family.” His statement appears to have been taken at face value.

     Avery’s name as superintendent confirms that this is where Mary Terry was detained. The 1870 census for McClure Township lists R N Avery as superintendent of the House of Refuge. He is there with his wife and family.

     This is on page 45 of the schedule and is followed by various supervisors, teachers, matrons, etc. of the establishment, and then come the names of around 230 inmates, who today would be called teenagers. On page 50 of the schedule we find Mary Terry.

     All it tells us is that she is 18 and was born in Pennsylvania. So, as noted above, rather than “sweet sixteen” she was nineteen when the accusations were made.

     A later report on the newer farm location dates from 1888. It’s found in The Journal of Prison Disciple and Philanthropy, Pennsylvania Prison Society, January 1888. This explained the House of Refuge regime: The girls “never mingle with the males or speak to them, nor do they ever see them except in the chapel services (at which) a minister of some religious denomination officiates.” As well as six and one half hours of schooling each secular day and chapel on Sundays, the girls “do the washing for the entire institution, cook for themselves, make their own clothing and also shirts for the boys.”

     One can appreciate why Mary would have been all too keen to get out of the place!

AI image generated by Leroy with thanks

     As to her subsequent history, there is one possible sighting in the Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette for 29 December 1871, which has a Mary Terry in Pittsburgh, as ”an inmate of a house of ill-repute” being sent to the workhouse.

     The Mary Anna Terry, who was born in Chester, Pennsylvania, in 1852, would lose her Terry name when she married and moved to New Jersey in 1874. She lived until 1937 and raised six children, one of whom lived until the 1970s.

     Returning to Jonas Wendell, his trials were not yet completely over. He was still subject to investigation in a church hearing at the Advent Christian Conference in New York State.

     Fortunately they ruled in his favor. The result below comes from The Advent Christian Times for 27 June 1871:

     A fuller report was published in The Advent Christian Times for 25 July 1871:

     The rider at the end suggests that while Jonas had been well-intentioned he’d been somewhat naive in his dealings with Mary.

     In spite of his various trials, Jonas expended himself on his preaching because of the urgency of the times as he saw it. He published a small booklet Present Truth or Meat in Due Season in 1870 to proclaim a literal return of Christ for 1873. It was republished in June 1873 with an extra chapter by E. Wolcott of Keyport, New Jersey.

     Jonas died before his own “great disappointment.” An obituary in The Watchman’s Cry for 1 October 1873, written by the editor S.W. Bishop, expressed support for his views:

DEATH OF ELDER JONAS WENDELL

“He was an earnest lover of the appearing of our Great King, and was therefore deeply interested in those prophecies which treat especially of his glorious advent. By a thorough and prayerful study of those prophecies he became fully convinced that our Lord will return to earth this present year, 1873; and, as many of our dear brethren know, sent out a synopsis of his faith in this great truth in a printed essay, broadcast through the land...WE SHALL SEE HIM IN A FEW WEEKS, beyond the reach of death, at the appearing of our great Life giver, when he shall come to bestow immortality on all the good, both dead and living. God grant we may all be ready.” (Capitals mine).

     As noted in CTR’s own comments in the Herald supplement, he was aware of Jonas’ beliefs about 1873. Barbour was to recalculate the date for 1874, and when again nothing visible happened, eventually the concept of an “invisible presence” was explained.

     In a sense this was history repeating itself. William Miller’s movement focussed on 1843. Nothing happened. So the chronology was adjusted to reach 1844. Nothing happened. It was then calculated that the date was right but the related event was invisible – in 1844 this would be the “cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary” which is still the position of the Seventh Day Adventist Church today. Scroll forward 30 years and we have Wendell’s date of 1873. Nothing happened. The chronology was then adjusted to reach 1874. Again it seemed that nothing happened. But Nelson Barbour came to believe that 1874 marked an invisible “parousia.” His paper Herald of the Morning proclaiming that event attracted CTR, who as noted in his own statement quoted earlier, was familiar with Wendell’s views.

     So Jonas was a real person, with real problems but a real mission.

     He was undoubtedly sincere, even if we judge him as sincerely wrong. One cannot fault him on his zeal for the scriptures (as he understood them) or his passion for publishing and preaching in spite of various issues to contend with.

     He certainly left his mark on CTR, and the rest as they say, is history.