The Prophetic Conference
A group of
more or less prominent clergy organized a Prophetic Conference for the last two
days of October and the first of November 1878. A prospectus was widely
circulated stating the organizers” purpose and inviting attendance. Those
promoting the conference saw the doctrine of Christ’s return as neglected,
reproached:
Dear Brethren in Christ: When from any
cause some vital doctrine of God”s Word has fallen into neglect or suffered contradiction
and reproach, it becomes the serious duty of those who hold it, not only
strongly and constantly to reaffirm it, but to seek by all means in their power
to bring back the Lord’s people to its apprehension and acceptance. The
precious doctrine of Christ’s second personal appearing has, we are constrained
to believe, long lain under such neglect and misapprehension.
In the Word of God we find it holding a
most conspicuous place. It is there strongly and constantly emphasized as a
personal and imminent event, the great object of the Church’s hope, the
powerful motive to holy living and watchful service, the inspiring ground of
confidence amid the sorrows and sins of the present evil world, and the event
that is to end the reign of Death, cast down Satan from his throne, and
establish the kingdom of God on Earth. So vital, indeed, is this truth
represented to be that the denial of it is pointed out as one of the
conspicuous signs of apostasy of the last days. ….
Looking over the Church of God in all
its branches, and listening to the clear and decisive testimony to this truth
that is coming up in such volume from teachers and pastors, expositors and lay
workers, evangelists and missionaries, it can but appear to us that after the
long sleep of the Church, the wise are at last rising up, and trimming their
lamps, in preparation for the coming of the Bridegroom.
The
conference was patterned after conferences held in the United
Kingdom . Barbour commented on the conference
before it took place, writing an article entitled “Prophetic Light” for the
November 1878 Herald of the Morning. Few of those attending the
conference read the Herald. We can safely say that almost none of them
did. Of those present, we can only prove that J. A. Seiss read at least one
issue. So, though he wrote it as if addressing the delegates, Barbour’s article
was meant for internal consumption. He reiterated their date-based
speculations:
Now, brethren, if it is truth,
and facts you are after, please notice a few concerning the Jewish
nation, and the time of their chastisement: facts, which if recognized,
would startle the world.
The Jews have existed, as a nation,
nearly four thousand years; but under two entirely distinct conditions. First,
as the acknowledged favorites of Heaven, and second, as the cursed of God. The
former, prior to the crucifixion; the latter, since the “veil of the temple was
rent,” “and their house was left unto them desolate.”
Now we will neither lay down a premise,
or make a deduction; but simply state facts which will prove that the
time of Jewish dispersion is ended and that the long foretold restoration of
the Jews has in fact commenced, this present year, 1878.
The rest of
the article rehearses Barbour’s “Israel ’s
Double” doctrine, the theory that there is a precise time correspondence between
“the Jewish Dispensation” and “the Christian Dispensation.” If he intended to
sway the conference, he went unheard and unheeded. The conferees” contact with
Barbourite doctrine was through Russell who attended and circulated among the
delegates. What should interest us is the attitude reflected in the
introductory paragraphs. He presupposed that the prominent clergy who sponsored
the event might not be truly interested in “the facts” and “the truth.” He had
them both. They did not. They were willing to debate formally stating their
premise and making deductions. He need not do that because he had the facts of
scriptural fulfillment at hand. So, while the bulk of the article is rational
in tone, his view of himself as the last day’s voice of God comes through
clearly.
In a later
post-conference article, Barbour noted a basic agreement on the nature of the
Second Advent:
The most advanced christian [sic]
teachers of to-day, tell us that the coming of Christ to the “air,” where his
saints are to be caught away to meet him, and his coming to the earth “with all
his saints,” are not only different stages of the advent, but that these two
stanges are separated by all, or, most of the time of trouble which is coming
on the nations. – I believe the prophetic conference recently held in England ,
and also that held in N. Y.
City , almost to a man, believe in
more than one stage to the advent. And many of them believe the foretold “time
of trouble,” is already commencing.[1]
Russell
attended the conference, engaging with delegates and promoting in a less brash
way the doctrine he shared with Barbour. Evening sessions were given over to
“testimony and conference on the topics of the day.”[2]
The testimony period suited his purposes, and what evidence we have suggests he
used it to promote his beliefs. He does not tell us the names of those with
whom he discussed prophetic themes, but we know from other sources the names of
two and can with high probability of success guess at several others. One of
the most interesting records is found in Jenny Smith’s diary. We could not
locate the original diary and it may not still exist, but Smith published key
entries. We find this entry for November
1, 1878 :
At Sister Clark’s. Two more interesting
days have passed. This has been a special privilege. Yesterday A. M. went to
Dr. Tyng’s church. Attended the convention met to discuss “The Second Coming of
Christ;” was surprised to meet acquaintances from all parts of the land. Had
the pleasure of meeting several with whom I have corresponded – Rev. H. L.
Hastings, Dr. Charles Cullis and others. Brother Russell of Pittsburg ,
[sic] would have me take lunch with him. …
Afternoon. – The meeting was
very interesting; Dr. Feltwell went with me to see Harriet Britton, the great
missionary. Returned for evening-meeting; heard several great speakers. In the
afternoon had a number of calls. Miss Stevens says she read of my restoration
while in Paris , France .[3]
Jennie
Smith (1842-1924) was a railroad evangelist. Typhoid fever left her an invalid,
but she felt called to evangelism. Unable to walk, she traveled in a wheeled
cot, using her affliction to draw others into conversation. Her experiences led
her to believe that the un-churched were often more charitable than regular
attenders:
As I am compelled to travel in the
baggage car on account of my cot, I have had ample opportunity to test the
hearts of those men, who some think are void of feeling. I must say they are,
with few exceptions, a most kindhearted and obliging set of men. Although they
may resent it at first, I am satisfied they appreciate any true interest in
their eternal welfare.
I have seen the time when I was so
impressed I could not refrain from speaking to a man about his soul’s
salvation, though I did not know but I should be cursed for it. Yet, in view of
his danger, I felt fearless and lost all scruples as to my position. I looked
to Jesus for strength, and before I left the car that man, with tearful eyes,
thanked me as he grasped my hand, saying, “Would to God more Christians would
deal with us as patiently and perseveringly.” If social and reading-rooms were
established at all points where the hands who are off duty could have a
pleasant lounging place of their own, scores of souls might be saved from
temptation and ruin. Through conversation with such persons I have been
impressed with the thought of the privations which the public demand from
railroad hands, street-car drivers and conductors, livery men, firemen,
policemen, and others, including domestic servants; and I fear we, as a
Christian people, are not as charitable and do not feel the interest and
sympathy we should for those whose occupations necessarily deprive them of
Sabbath privileges.[4]
In March
1878 she regained her ability to walk. She believed it was the result of a
divine healing. In this era Russell was open to the idea that faith cures were
real, and he would not have disputed this. It
is tempting to speculate on Russell’s attraction to Jennie Smith. However, we
can’t go further than what she wrote in her diary. He took her to lunch. We can
note, however, that there is a slight resemblance to Maria Ackley, who he
married the next year.
Smith notes her association with
“Dr. Feltwell.” Russell fell in with this circle and Feltwell was attracted to
Barbourite theology. William Vessels Feltwell was a pastor in the Reformed
Episcopal Church, a sect of that church formed in 1873 as a result of the
tendency of some Episcopalians and Anglicans to move toward Catholicism.[5]
Feltwell was of the organizers, leaving behind thirteen years of ministry in
the Protestant Episcopal Church.[6]
Russell and Feltwell discussed Barbourite doctrine, and Feltwell expressed
interest. While Jennie Smith falls out of the picture, Feltwell’s interest
became an incident in the Atonement controversy. Not long after the conference,
he wrote to Barbour addressing the Atonement issue. Barbour extracted a
paragraph, publishing it in the Herald:
I believe the original will clear up
the difficulty which rests in many minds regarding this passage, [1 Peter
2:24.] and perhaps the whole subject of substitution. I am inclined to
believe the popular substituting sacrifice of our dear Lord is sentimental.
There certainly is no substitutionary idea in connection with the fall of the
first Adam and his descendants; and I cannot discern any in the second Adam and
his seed. I am much interested and instructed, in your arguments on the
atonement.[7]
Russell was taken aback. It seemed
that Feltwell endorsed “the new views strongly.” When he next saw Feltwell in
March 1879 he raised the issue:
I was much surprised, and seeing the
brother in March, I inquired; why? He informed me that the article referred to
had not stated him correctly – that he had written to Bro. B. to have it
corrected, and said he, “Didn't you see the correction in the March Herald?”
No, I answered. Then he got me his copy. There it was – Bro. B. regrets at any
error, &c, and a quotation from Bro. F's. last letter: “I am now and always
have been a believer in the vicarious atonement of Christ.” This seemed all
right and I know that it was possible for any one to make a mistake, when
merely making an extract from another's letter, and I was rejoiced to think
that the correction was so freely made.
But judge of my surprise and sorrow
when upon attempting to show it to Bro. P. a few days after, I found that in my
March No. a notice of Bro. Rice's paper “The Last Trump;” occupied its place –
How was it in yours? We could not understand it, it seemed like double dealing
– too much management for a Herald of the Millennial Morning. Alas!, I said to
myself; is this the fruit of the new views of the atonement? [8]
When
Russell finally addressed this in print, Barbour politely called Feltwell a liar
and admitted his complicity in furthering the lie. Barbour called Feltwell’s
letter “a frank but private statement of his views.” He suggested that he
should not have published it, “but as it was among the first letters which took
a decided stand for the advancing truth, I did make an extract from it, without
thinking of the trouble it might make between him and his church.” “Some weeks”
later Feltwell wrote Barbour asking for a retraction:
He sent the second latter, informing me
of the trouble in which it had involved him, and earnestly asking me to publish
the second letter merely to relieve him from that difficulty. I concluded that
by publishing it in the Phila. Edition, so as to reach his persecutors, would
meet his supposed necessity, without doing injustice to the truth, among the
general readers of the herald; and
acted on that suggestion; and still believe that, under all the circumstances,
I acted wisely.[9]
Barbour said he couldn’t publish
the second letter in all editions without explaining all the circumstances
which he was unwilling to do. Feltwell was threatened with loss of income and
position, Barbour said. There seems insufficient evidence on which to form a
firm conclusion. Feltwell did not present it in this light; at least Russell
didn’t understand this from his conversation with Feltwell. Barbour was always
the hero of his own story and never above distorting the truth to further his
own ends. But we have no basis upon which to discount Barbour’s account.
Feltwell drops out of the picture
here. The enduring significance of this event rests in what it reveals about
how matters stood between Barbour and Russell by mid-year 1879. Russell saw
Barbour as controlling and as distorting the truth. Barbour suggested that
Russell made an issue out of the Feltwell incident to find “some apparent evil”
in him. It was meant, Barbour wrote, to support Russell’s “boyish act in
demanding the entire control of the paper, or, the alternative, another paper
for the same list of subscribers.”
Russell left unnamed the others to
whom he spoke. But after explaining where he differed from some them, he added
this interesting comment:
I knew many of these brethren and loved
and honored them; but now I love and honor them more; and on points of
difference, we shall doubtless come closer together, if we all remember that we
are still learners; and also that we are to walk in the light, grow in grace
and knowledge; and in love let such as are strong, bear the infirmities of the
weak.[10]
Though we
can say with certainty that he knew Seiss, and with strong probability that he previously
met Horace Hastings, we are left to suppose on slim evidence who most of these
are. But we can note that during his years with the Allegheny Bible Class he
wrote to and traveled to meet many of those writing and preaching on prophecy.
This extends the sphere of pre-Barbour influences, putting the lie to those who
would have all of his background be Adventist.
=====
Reaction to the Conference
Much of the
religious press was antagonistic. The New York Independent, a
Congregationalist magazine, editorialized:
Their way of considering Christ’s
kingdom as visible, physical, and political is intensely Jewish and
non-Christian in its character. It proves somewhere a false exegesis – that a
doctrine is deduced from Scripture, which is not in harmony with the spiritual
nature of the Christian system. There is no deeper truth in the Bible than
this: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom
of God .” Those who are now looking
for such a glorious personal Advent with the succeeding political reign of
Christ in Jerusalem , seem to us to
dishonor Gospel dispensation.
The
Independent’s opinion was echoed by others. What makes this and other
comments interesting to us is that they are exactly the same arguments used
against Barbour and Russell. The National Baptist suggested that
Christians should ignore prophetic studies because they were not meant to be
understood until fulfilled and because they diverted attention from social and
political issues:
We do not hold that we are to live each
day as though we expected the Lord to come on that day, any more than we are to
live each day as though that day would be our last. If we believed that the
Lord was coming to-day, we should take very little trouble about next year’s
elections, or about any future event. We believe we are each day to discharge
the duties of that day. Practically, and so far as regards our future
state, the hour of death, the hour of the Christian’s release, is the Coming of
the Lord. This may come at any day, at any hour. And it becomes us to be in
readiness for it.
This
represents a point of view Russell confronted and rejected.
The
Interior editorialized:
This convention gives a new impulse and
added respectability to a doctrinal affectation which is much more fashionable,
just now, than godliness.
No doubt it is pleasant to one who loves the good things of the world – honor, fame, power, exalted rank – and who is not specially solicitous that others shall enjoy the same to “stand and wait,” as Dr. Tyng said in his address that they were doing, in the blessed hope that the Lord will suddenly come bringing all these glorious things to the, unearned, and damnation to fourteen hundred millions more who sit in the shadow of ignorance.
No doubt it is pleasant to one who loves the good things of the world – honor, fame, power, exalted rank – and who is not specially solicitous that others shall enjoy the same to “stand and wait,” as Dr. Tyng said in his address that they were doing, in the blessed hope that the Lord will suddenly come bringing all these glorious things to the, unearned, and damnation to fourteen hundred millions more who sit in the shadow of ignorance.
These
criticisms represent a growing and fairly important rejection of
millenarianism. Everything said against the conference would be asserted
against Watch Tower
belief and against Russell personally.
Barbour’s Reaction
Barbour didn’t attend but read the
published reports. He was disappointed that the conference didn’t echo his own
views:
After a careful perusal of the report of the “Prophetic
Conference,” I feel dissatisfied. From the character of the speakers, and
the nature of the subjects advertised, I had looked for some advanced light.
From the paper on the “Times of the Gentile,” by Rev. J.[ohn] D. Duffield, I
had supposed something definite would have forced itself into notice.[11]
Barbour
reasserted his belief that Gentile Times would end in 1914, moving from that on
to other issues:
Everyone at that conference professes
to believe that Christ will come with all his saints to the mount of Olives, [sic]
at the end of the times of the Gentiles; and they profess to believe
that it will be within the limits of this present living generation. And yet
with all the present indications of the return of the Jews, the subject of the
Times of the Gentiles, although advertised, does not appear in the reports. I
do not know how the Dr. handles the subject, but I do know he could not have
presented it in its fullness, without approximating to something like a definite
conclusion; but the paper did not appear, nor was there one particle of
advanced light by which we might presume that the advent was nearer than it was
one thousand years ago.
The different phases of the advent,
coming for his saints, or coming with his saints’ coming to
gather his elect, or coming to the mount of Olives, after they are gathered,
were all one and the same, so far as expressed by them. The signs of the times,
so pregnant with the coming time of trouble, in which Daniel’s people are to be
delivered, or any other indications of the coming crisis, were passed over unnoticed.
There seems to have been a pre-arranged determination that no reason for
apprehending the advent near should be presented. To say that it may
come to-morrow, brings no reproach, but to offer any reason why it may come in
our day, savors of “Millerism;” and so they cramped themselves into a
nut-shell”
These were
Barbour’s pet issues, and he continued in this vein for several more
paragraphs, quoting from the conference report. He sent a copy of the December Herald
of the Morning to all the conference speakers, so it was to them directly
that Barbour said:
The investigation of prophecy, and
especially of the prophetic measurements, has a reproach associated with
it which few have courage to face. And yet these prophetic measurements are a
part of the “Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation.”
I am convinced your gathering at New
York will, in the providence of God, bring forth good fruit, by turning the
attention of thousands, to this great impending event; but a vague and dark “expectation,”
such as your words are calculated to arouse, is a mere sign of the
times. And to stop there, will leave you, as to the second coming, in a parallel
condition to the Jewish church at the first advent; when yet notwithstanding
the universal expectation, they have suffered an age of chastisement, “because
they knew not the time of their
visitation.”[12]
Barbour was
scolding where Russell was not. This difference between the two persisted until
Barbour’s death in 1905. Barbour saw himself as the ultimate teacher. In this
period Russell saw himself as a co-laborer even with those who disagreed with
him. They were all learners, Russell felt. Even after he came to see himself as
God’s appointed servant, Russell seemed eternally surprised when his view of
truth was rejected harshly. Barbour expected it, and his personality drew it on
him. It was a self-certifying view. Christians should expect rejection. They
rejected his message. He was, therefore, the God-chosen messenger.
Ambivalence to Rejection
Russell and
Paton continued to associate with and support the Herald. Paton
continued to preach in the Midwest . Russell sent money
to Barbour. Both events are reported in the December 1878 issue of Herald of
the Morning.[13]Additional funds from
Russell are note in the January and February 1879 issues. Paton continued to
write for the Herald; an article by him entitled “The Kingdom” appeared in the
February issue as well.
Barbour
noted declining reader interest, inserting this notice in the February 1879
issue:
Subscribers for six months who received
the first monthly paper, the July number for 1878, have now received two
numbers beyond the time of their subscriptions; and as many of these
have been sent by third parties, it is quite possible some of them do not wish
the paper continued, hence we must drop all such names, unless we hear from
them.
He would send the paper free to the
poor, he said, and payment in postage was acceptable. He offered to send the
paper free for two months to any who wished to examine it.
Russell and others noted his
tendency to print letters favorable to his new views on Atonement and
Resurrection. Contrary opinion existed and shows up in the articles that
addressed readers’ questions. A reader asked him how he reconciled his “latest
views on the resurrection with the Elijah type.” He reiterated that he hadn’t
previously examined the atonement doctrine and its ramifications: “I never had
any view, only a confused idea, until I studied the subject.” He provided
little explanation, but observed that “there is no room for difference of
opinion.”[14]
[1] N. H. Barbour: Time Arguments, Herald of the Morning,
February 1879, page 33.
[2] The Prophetic Conference: October 30, 31, November 1, 1878 . Christ’s
Second Coming, New York Tribune, Extra Number 46, page 4.
[3] Jennie Smith: From Baca to Beulah: From a Couch of
Suffering to My Feet, to Exalt His Holy Name, Garrigues Brothers,
Philadelphia, 1889, pages 257-258.
[4] Jennie Smith: Valley
of Baca : A Record of
Triumph and Suffering, Hitchcock and Walden, Cincinnati ,
1880, page 268.
[5] Reformed Episcopal history is not relevant here, but if
our readers wish to pursue this they may consult G. D. Cummin’s Primitive
Episcopacy: A Return to the "Old Paths" of Scripture and the Early
Church . A Sermon,
Preached in Chicago , Dec. 14, 1873 . At the
Consecration of the Rev. Charles Edward Cheney, D.D., as a Bishop in the
Reformed Episcopal Church, Edward O. Jenkins, New York, 1874.
[6] The Episcopal Schism, New York
World, January 6, 1874 .
A. C. Guelzo: For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the
Reformed Episcopalians, Pennsylvania
State University ,
1994, pages 158.
[7] Feltwell to Barbour in Correspondence, Herald of the
Morning¸ January 1879, page 23.
[8] C. T. Russell: To Readers of the Herald of the
Morning, Supplement to Zion ’s
Watch Tower ,
July 1879.
[9] N. H. Barbour: Questions and Answers, Herald of the
Morning, August 1879, page 27.
[10] C. T. Russell: The Prophetic Conference, Herald of the
Morning, December 1878, page 84.
[11] John Duffield was a professor at Princeton
University .
[12] N. H. Barbour: Christ’s Second Coming, Herald of the
Morning, December 1878, pages 84-86.
[13] A letter from Mrs. D. B. Wolfe of Nevada ,
Ohio , reports Paton’s lectures
there. The Letters Received column reports money sent from Russell. Both are on
page 82 of that issue.
[14] N. H. Barbour: Questions and Answers, Herald of the
Morning¸ February 1879, page 39.
2 comments:
I find your extract very interesting.
Two questions.
1)
The conference was after the disappointment for the 1878 rapture and after Russell's opposition to Barbour about the Atonement. You write: "Barbour's article was meant for internal consumption". Do you think that Barbour was conscious and afraid of an imminent unbridgeable internal rift?
2)
You write: "But we can note that during his years with the allegheny Bible Class he wrote to and travelled to meet many of those writing and preaching on prophesy. This extend the sphere of pre-Barbour influnces, etc." The statement is about the period 1869-1876, right?
Finally. Excellent work about the biographical sketches of Jenny Smith (intriguing) and Feltwell.
Thank you.
You write:
"Feltwell drops out of the picture here. The enduring significance of this event rests in what it reveals about how matters stood between Barbour and Russell by mid-year 1879"
I suppose you intend: "by mid-year 1878".
Post a Comment