A Third Failure
Accepting
that Christ was invisibly present led Barbour to other conclusions. He supposed
that Translation would occur in 1875, apparently announcing that through a
supplement to the October 1874 Herald of the Morning. I could not locate
that issue, but he referred to it with the paper’s resumption in June 1875:
We resume the publication of the paper, as was
foreshadowed in the October supplement, in which the statement was made, ‘If
after the developments of October shall have passed, this paper is continued,
it will retain the name of “The Herald of the Morning.” At that time, our views
of ‘the end of the world,’ or ‘the time of harvest,’ and the way in which these
prophetic periods would terminate, were very different from present. And yet
the impression was strong that humanity would receive food and light on these
subjects ... and the paper continued.
Exact
dating for the revised ‘views’ adopted by Barbour and those who remained
attached to his theology is difficult. We discuss it in some detail in Separate
Identity, volume one. They believed their ascension would take place on May
1, 1875. The Woodsfield, Ohio, Spirit of Democracy, with typical misrepresentation
of actual belief, reported: “The Adventists who usually hold a camp-meeting at
Alton Bay, New Hampshire, have divided within the past year. The new party
calls itself “Timists,’ and have fixed the date of the end of the world May 1,
1875.”[1]
This brief report is nearly all we have of the 1874 Alton Bay conference. Yet,
we see in it the beginning of the irreparable rift between Barbourites and
Advent Christians.
Barbour
was an Age-to-Come believer though his beliefs were ill formed. He wasn’t
interested in a restored paradise earth, though he saw it as scriptural
doctrine. He focused on heavenly resurrection of the saints, among whom he
included himself. One does not see that in this article. And Barbour used the
phrase “end of the world,” though inexactly.
[translation disappointment here]
Reluctant
to abandon 1873, 74, and 1875 as prophetic dates Barbour redefined his beliefs.
[B. W. Keith here]
A
hardcore of believers persisted. At least one of them was at the Springfield,
Massachusetts, camp meeting. It was the primary annual gathering of the Life
and Advent Union. As a religion they were more welcoming than Advent Christians
who were shedding members who retained age-to-come belief. Springfield was
chosen because it was a center of Life and Advent belief. One of the most
numerous congregations was there. They called themselves Bethel Church of the
Association of Believers in the Pre-Millennial Advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
They were a union congregation made from two pre-existing churches. An 1875 Directory
gave their number as 275, saying that seats were free and noting congregation
singing. They were well-supported financially. The Directory added: “The Life
and Advent Union Association, of which this church is a member, have their camp
grounds north of Liberty street, near old Chicopee Falls road, and hold
camp-meetings there usually the second week in August.”[2] So
it was at the August 1875 camp meeting that a Barbourite asserted their
two-stage, partially invisible parousia doctrine.
One of those present
remembered this in his old age. John Abner Cargile was new to the Adventist
movement. Though in short order he associated with Advent Christians, he was
independent in 1875. A southerner whose ministry was centered in Alabama, he
came to Adventism from the Primitive Baptists through a study of man’s nature.
In 1875 he made his “first visit north, and attended the eastern
camp-meetings.” He attended both the Alton Bay and Springfield meetings. His
recalled events this way:
The writer is old enough to remember reading after one
N. H. Barber in about 1870 A. D. I believe, who lived in Rochester, N.Y., who
taught that Christ would come in October, 1874. When the time passes, as one of
his followers told the writer, while at a campmeeting at Springfield, Mass., in
1875, that Mr. Barber was right as to the ending of the 2300 years Daniel 8:14,
in October 1874 A. D. But that he was mistaken only in the manner of his
coming, which was to be as a thief, secretly to steal away his saints. And so
far as I am informed, that was the beginning of the secret of the return
theory. I said to my informant: “Do you call my Christ a rogue, sir?” He said:
“Well, the Bible says he was to come as a thief.” I said: “Yes, he was to come
unexpectedly as a thief, but not to steal as a thief.”[3]
Cargile
thought his non-sequitur reply clever even forty some years later, but it did
not and does not address the issue of an invisible parousia. That’s
aside from the main point here. Barbour’s failure affected many in the broad
millennialist and Adventist movements. The camp meetings in 1874 and 75 were
full of controversy and division. The main Sunday observant Adventist and
millennialist bodies largely abandoned time setting, though its extinction
among each body was delayed into the 20th Century. Barbourites went
into a precipitous decline.
Some
clung to date setting, pointing to September 1875. The Portland, Maine,
Daily Press reported: “The 10th of September is fixed for the
next Adventist scare, but skeptics think the earth is too wet to burn for six
months yet. The Adventists had better do what the earth will not – dry up.”
Barbour suggested something else.
Barbour
did not join in the September speculation but modified his exegesis to
accommodate his latest failure. [continue from 6/75 hom]
[1] See the January 26, 1875 issue.
[2] Springfield City Directory and Business Advertiser,
1875-1876, Clark W. Bryan & Co, 1875, page 43.
[3] J. A. Cargile in Present Truth Messenger as
reproduced in the June 26, 1917, issue of The Restitution. See also
Cargile: The Autobiography: Or, Personal Experiences and Recollections of
John A. Cargile, Advent Christian Publication Society, Boston, 1891.
5 comments:
If this is a naïve comment, I apologize in advance.
If today someone were to proclaim that the end will come in a few years, say the year 2025, even if they had "proof" from Bible chronology, they would be labelled by most as a fraud or worse, and would not be taken seriously. (It is still happening, I know.) It seems that the number of people who would believe the date would be extremely small, if any believed at all.
Although that certainly happened to Barbour and others, what was it about that time that so many took his dates seriously?
We constantly are reminded that we should not judge historical characters by modern day standards. Agreed. Bruce: Are you planning to give some insight into what circumstances during those times that had people put their faith in dates, even after multiple false alarms, and the change of the date of "the end"?
I know you have written a bit about the religious fervor of the time having an influence on Barbour's hearers, but I hope you will write more about it. If I have missed the point, or have overlooked your explanation of this in your first Barbour book, I apologize.
The setting of dates, even multiple times, is what fascinates me about those times, and those prophecies.
Is it possible, even to a small extent, to place ourselves in these times, and try to understand how people could believe these chronological prophecies?
Andrew Grzadzielewski
Excellent question. In the revision to this book, I write more intensively about the religious and social setting of the era. We live in an irreligious age where even those who claim to be Christian do not take the Bible at its word. But in Barbour's day, most Americans and those in the UK, a large part of Protestant Europe took the Bible and its prophecies seriously. Barbour's was only one of many belief systems that focused on prophetic fulfillments. He would be a footnote in the larger historical context if it were not for his brief association with and prolonged opposition to Russell.
A suggestion: As this work is a revision, might the revised text be highlighted by being a different colour? This would also draw attention to the reference(s) which prompted the revision.
Many authors like to show revisions to their text in a different coloured font for their own benefit. As you are inviting comments on your revised pieces, I (for one) am unaware of what has been revised.
It is easy to make this adjustment, too.
A comparison between my recent posts and the first edition should show what is new and what is not.
Thank you for your reply, Bruce.
I look forward to reading the revised Barbour book.
I wish I could put into words how grateful I am for your research. There are many in my congregation who appreciate it as well. One sister calls your work "a breath of fresh air."
Andrew
Post a Comment