The Trials of Jonas

 

The previous post on this blog dated December 23 has this message from Annie along with six comments at this time of writing.

Uncle B is mostly bed bound. He has a backlog of emails that he is not able to answer at this time. Please be patient.   A. M. d'iles-Stewart

I didn’t want to knock this message off the top spot with the article below. As soon as Bruce is better and back in circulation I will remove this notification.

 

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.