Charles Taze Russell and The Restitution

by "Jerome"


(Note: The article below was first published on the closed blog in June of last year. Since there has been some recent debate over whether CTR’s theology was mainly influenced by Adventist or Age to Come belief, it seemed relevant to republish it here. The Restitution was the main paper for Age to Come believers in the last three decades of the 19th century. The amount of space they gave to CTR, and the increasingly unfriendly tone of their comments as CTR’s theology developed, is a strong indication of where he had come from, and then – in their minds – deviated from. This writer suspects that researchers would be hard put to find a similar level of fixation in Adventist publications of the era, which tells its own story.

There is also a postscript at the end detailing what further research has uncovered since the article was originally published)


One of the key Age to Come papers of the 19th century was The Restitution. It started life as a successor to journals edited by Benjamin Wilson (of the Emphatic Diaglott) and his nephew Thomas Wilson. The title Restitution ran from 1870 to 1926.

It originally represented scattered autonomous groups that used terms like Abrahamic Faith, One Faith, Age to Come, Blessed Hope and Church of God, and originally allowed a wide range of views, as well as debating with what one writer called “half brethren” (July 28, 1880, page 2) such as Adventists and Christadelphians. Regular hot topics included the Second Advent, the resurrection, Jesus’ pre-human existence, a personal Devil, and what current events with literal Israel might mark the close of the Gentile Times.

Contributors in the 1870s included familiar names such as George Storrs and particularly George Stetson. Between 1876-1878 Stetson may possibly have written more for The Restitution than for Adventist journals like the Times and Crisis.

We know that Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR) associated with Storrs and Stetson, and also attended meetings with G D Clowes, who is listed preaching at Quincy Hall, Allegheny in the Restitution’s Church Directory in its issue for November 5, 1874. When George Storrs visited what he called a “little group in Pittsburgh” in the mid-1870s, he met both Clowes and Joseph Lytel Russell, CTR’s father. (See for example, Storrs’ Bible Examiner for November 1875, where both G D Clowes and J L Russell write to Storrs about the same meetings). Although CTR is not mentioned here, he obviously associated with Clowes because ZWT for March 1889 carries an obituary where CTR refers to “our dear Brother Clowes” (see reprints page 1110).

So when CTR began his own publishing ministry, The Restitution was an obvious place to send his material.

This article is going to look at CTR’s connections with The Restitution over a ten year period. During this time, in addition to his own periodical, CTR published four main works, Three Worlds, Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, Food for Thinking Christians, and The Divine Plan of the Ages. All were featured in The Restitution, and in a sense, they illustrate how the relationship between CTR and this One Faith group deteriorated as the years went by.


THREE WORLDS

An advertisement for Three Worlds in found in The Restitution for May 30, 1877, on page 3. Three silhouetted globes surround the title Three Worlds. It may well have been a paid advertisement, and it would be interesting to discover which other papers also printed it. It gives the publisher as C T Russell, Rochester, NY. The by-line reads – should be in the hands of every Bible student. No actual review has been found in surviving issues of The Restitution.

Nelson Barbour of course was the main author of Three Worlds, CTR’s role here was as publisher.


OBJECT AND MANNER OF OUR LORD’S RETURN

The Restitution for February 27, 1878 on page 2 made the following announcement: The Restitution supplement, as was noticed last week, was furnished by the writer C T Russell, to the readers of our paper, at his own expense both for the printing and mailing. (end of quote). Unfortunately it does not give a title and the issue from the previous week which probably did give a name is lost. Editorial comment suggests that this was Object and Manner which would be the logical thing for CTR to send out at that time.

It illustrated that CTR, as a successful businessman, had one advantage over many others – he could afford to send out material at his own expense both for the printing and the mailing. By contrast, The Restitution was always concerned about lack of funds and asking for donations. It is interesting to note that CTR chose this journal for the purpose.

The results must have been mixed. The review has a friendly but condescending tone. Rather magnanimously it states “we do not wish to prejudice our readers as it is a present to them which has been quite an expense to the writer”. However, readers must “prove all things” and the reviewer certainly had different views on resurrection and the Second Advent. Still (to quote again) the “fair chance” part of the supplement will probably please some of our readers. (end of quote).

Assuming that this February 27 freebie was Object and Manner, when others had time to assimilate its contents, they were not prepared to be so charitable. In The Restitution for June 26, 1878 one Restitution stalwart, J. B. Cook, had read it through thoroughly and did not like it one bit.

Cook’s review took center stage on the front page – The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return by C.T. Russell, noticed by J.B.Cook.

Cook starts by saying the pamphlet had been circulated both directly and indirectly and he received his copy with Herald of the Morning. The suggestion that Christ’s return had already taken place invisibly did not sit at all well with Cook. And as for the “second chance” gospel from H. Dunn, this was “another gospel”. Cook’s review is peppered with expressions like – delusive - utterly fallacious - the phantom of an excited brain... He concludes his attack with the words: (quote) It is in deep sorrow for them that I write. Brother R is spending his money for that which is not bread, and the brethren are scattered by “uncertain sounds, yet I rejoice. “The Lord knoweth them that are his”. Amen. “The half has not been told” to these brethren, but adieu. (end of quote).

There is a hint of theatrical flourish in the final “adieu” with perhaps a suggestion of 1 John 2 v.19 about it – “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort” (NWT)


FOOD FOR THINKING CHRISTIANS

CTR’s next publication for mass distribution was the 160 page pamphlet Food for Thinking Christians. Ultimately, over one million were circulated. This could hardly be ignored by The Restitution, although they really tried.

It was general policy to include cuttings from exchanged journals as fillers, and the November 2, 1881 issue of The Restitution, page 2, quoted from a letter J. C. Sunderlin sent to Zion’s Watch Tower from London. Sunderlin gives a little homily on running the Christian race, prompted by an engraving seen in a Fleet Street window. (The original is found in Zion’s Watch Tower for October-November 1881, reprints page 292.)

Sunderlin’s whole point in being in London was to organize the distribution of Food for Thinking Christians, but you would never know that from The Restitution. One wonders why they even quoted what they did.

The silence about Food continued for a year or two, by which time many Age to Come groups were familiar with the publication and it could no longer be ignored. The June 13, 1883 Restitution finally devoted four long columns on its back page to the problem, in the article A Brief Review by regular writer Wiley Jones. In a critical and not particularly brief review, Jones studiously managed to avoid mentioning either the name of the book, the publisher, or the author. He even makes the point that (quote) the name of the writer does not appear on the title-page (end of quote) – which was true but the implication appears deliberately misleading. All Jones would admit to was that (quote) a pamphlet of 160 pages, published in 1881...has been handed to me with a request that I would say something against its errors. (end of quote).

Wiley Jones obligingly referred to specific page numbers as he presented his criticism. His pen was not quite as poisonous in tone as J.B. Cook’s, but his view was much the same. The idea of the “second chance” for many dead did not appeal, and the chronological speculations on the timing of an invisible presence and the start of the resurrection were definitely not something for Restitution readers. By his amnesic approach to title and author Jones no doubt hoped to prevent further readers checking it out for themselves – even if just out of curiosity. But those who had seen the Food booklet would have no doubt what was being criticized.


THE DIVINE PLAN OF THE AGES

CTR’s next major work, and ultimately the one that received the widest distribution of all was the first volume of Millennial Dawn, entitled The Divine Plan of the Ages.

CTR’s Divine Plan was widely reviewed. J B Rotherham for example, in The Rainbow for December 1886 was to give it over nine pages. The Restitution regularly quoted from The Rainbow, and no doubt some of its readers subscribed. And these journals had other journals in common. The writing was on the Age to Come wall - you cannot avoid mentioning a book that everyone else will mention. So The Restitution’s own review appeared on October 13, 1886.

And here we hit a problem. The extant Restitution file was put together from several church collections in the 1980s and unfortunately the poor quality paper used, along with imperfect storage conditions over a century means they are incomplete. Frustratingly a key chunk of the Restitution’s review – what THEY actually thought about CTR’s book is missing. The main section that survives is quotes from other reviewers. As such these are secondary sources – where you have to take on trust that they have been quoted correctly and in context. However, in reviewing CTR’s links with The Restitution, it does seem worthwhile to document here that they did, in fact, review The Divine Plan of the Ages.

What survives of their review is reproduced in full below:

“Millennial Dawn – The Divine Plan of the Ages, by Charles T. Russell – (Pittsburgh: Zion’s Watch Tower). The Inter Ocean has before made mention of this work. It is the first of a series of volumes, each complete in itself, and designed to expound and make clear “the plan of the ages” in the salvation of man. It is strong writing, showing much research and excellent arrangement and method in its treatment of its subjects. Upon the opening pages is a chart marked “the chart of the ages,” which divides the periods into three dispensations. First to the flood – 1656 years; second includes the Jewish or gospel age, and third, yet to be fulfilled, the millennial age under the reign of Christ. “For this end Christ died and lived again that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.” There will doubtless be many exceptions taken to the theology of the writing, but none will doubt the honesty or earnestness, or the intended devotion to truth of the author. Christian readers may find teachings in the book to combat, but they will find much more to commend. From a scholarly standpoint the book will be marked as one of merited literary excellence.”

On the contrary the New York Independent says: - “Millennial Dawn, Volume 1, The Plan of the Ages, throws no light on our mind, and only adds to the old perplexities. It is hard to classify either the book or the author. He is a fifth monarchy man, and talks in a wild and dangerously anarchic way of the authority of governments and of social order. He seems to belong to the wing of the Adventists, known as “Sleepers” on account of their belief that all men, good and bad, sleep in Jesus until their “restitution” at the pre-millennial coming of Christ. At all events, he believes in the restitution at the second and pre-millennial advent of the entire race to an earthly life under the reign of Christ, and with Jerusalem as the world’s capital. The mild reign of the Prince of Peace hardens in his hands to a “rule of iron,” which, with evident relish of the anticipation, he asserts will not be at all to the liking of a very considerable portion of the 142,000,000,000 of the restored dead. So far as we can disentangle the confusion of the book, it is a ludicrous mixture of restorationism, pre-millennialism of the more or less orthodox type, and a large portion of adventism of a kind which we must leave to those who believe in it to say whether it is orthodox or heretical. To us it falls into the large but simple class of well-meant fooleries.”

Thus our readers will see how the “doctors disagree.” While there is no paper that comes to our office that we more highly esteem than the Independent, we think the literary reviewer, who wrote the above critique, has been too caustic in some of his expressions, and somewhat unfortunate in a few of his leading objections; inasmuch as these very objections seem to conflict as much with positive Scripture language as with statements contained in the book reviewed. See Ps ii. 9; Rev. ii. 26,27.

Human destiny is a problem of immensely solemn importance. Ontology, Soteriology, Eschatology, - the doctrines of Existence, of Salvation, of Last-Things – are the irrepressible questions forcing themselves upon the attention of all the thoughtful in this age of critical investigation. It has become apparent to many theologians – though painfully so in many instances – that the old creeds are about so many concentrated formularies of extravagant error on eternal retribution. To speak for ourselves, we like some chapters of this work. Of other chapters we must say that the themes discussed are open questions. To those...

(at this tantalizing point nine lines are missing, and then the last four lines are incomplete)

....woman (?) what.....saved, and obtain....of glory that fadeth not away.

(end of review)

It would be nice if – somewhere - a copy with the complete review could be found.


So, looking back one can see the distance growing between the Age-to-Come people and the fledgling Bible Student movement – although any attacks on conditional immortality would provoke a mutually defensive position.

In 1902, it must have been extremely galling for the Restitution office, who had stocked Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott for decades, when CTR obtained the plates and took over the role of publisher.

If their new people wanted a Diaglott, or if older members wished to replace one, now they had to go to The Watch Tower. Which probably meant they would read a copy of The Watch Tower. Horror of horrors! They might even choose to become Bible Students instead.


ADDENDUM

The article above had to assume that the supplement sent out with The Restitution for February 20, 1878, was CTR’s Object and Manner, because regrettably this particular issue is not extant. This can now be confirmed from George Storrs’ review in Bible Examiner for March 1878, page 167. Storrs writes about Object and Manner (quote) The author is one of my very dear friends, and is a sincere lover of truth. I have not the slightest doubt of his stern integrity...his sacrifice of time and money shows his faith (end of quote). But Storrs cannot accept the second presence concept and that it has already happened, and quotes approvingly from a current Restitution review, which queries invisible presence, and is critical, albeit in a kindly fashion.

Volume 2 of CTR’s Millennial Dawn series, The Time is at Hand, was given a kindly review by A J Eychaner in The Restitution for February 4, 1891. Eychaner disputes aspects of chronology (quote) I wish in this paper simply to call attention to an error in the count of Bro. Russell, which I think is fatal to his whole time argument (end of quote). However, this review is quite friendly, it calls CTR “Brother” and ends with “Submitted in all charity”.

By The Restitution for December 12, 1894, comments on Volume 2 were far more vitriolic. CTR has been (quote) blinded by his own invention...we squarely charge the author of Millennial Dawn with setting aside the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and representing his as deceiving the apostles by creating a body and clothing for that purpose. A man who would represent him in whose mouth was no guile, as capable of such abominable trickery in order to sustain his own, or some borrowed subterfuge, ought to be closely watched...All this folly grows out of want of faith in that great and glorious truth – justification by faith (end of quote).

What had probably not helped the writer’s blood pressure was the previous issue for December 5, 1894, detailing how a Bible Student had been giving out copies of the Old Theology Tract no. 21 Do You Know outside their place of worship. Restitution readers were being targeted! In the words of the writer (quote) evidently the Christ Mr Russell expects to reign with, never died for him....we admit there is a fraud, and as between the Lord Jesus and Mr. Russell, we decide it is the latter (end quote).

As noted at the end of the original article, CTR obtaining the plates for the Diaglott must have been the last straw.

It occurs to me ...

That most of those who read this blog pronounce B. W. Keith's last name as Keeth. It's a German name. It's pronounced Kyte, K eye t.

J. A. Seiss isn't Seesz. It's S eye sz.

Who wrote this?

It's signed E.B. It's probably from about 1920.

E. W. Brenneisen often signed correspondence using his initials E.B.

This is a suggested answer? Any thoughts?

On the Invitation Only Blog

I've posted a near final draft of Chapter One of our next book. It details the Russells' lives from immigration to 1870 with some spill over into later years. Many new things find their way into this chapter. We know the name of the Presbyterian Church the Russells attended, the names of its two pastors, the name of the Congregational Church C. T. R. joined, the names of its two pastors. We have a photo of one of them. We explain Russell's claim to "private tutors."

We correct the record in significant ways. Statements that find ready, uncritical acceptance from other writers are significantly wrong. We point out the errors and present original source documentation to support our claims.

One section of this chapter remains unwritten because we're waiting for a collection of documents from a church archive. Without that section (which should be brief) the chapter is fifty-two pages long formatted as it will be for publication. It's documented with 233 footnotes, almost all of which come from original sources such as immigration records, letters, financial documents, obituaries, and extracts from Russell's own words. There are many seldom seen photos and illustrations.

Want a sample of the footnotes? Here are some from later in the chapter:

Woodward & Rowlands’ Pittsburgh Directory for 1852, page 9.

Russell transcript, page 118; Diefenbach’s Directory: 1882-1883, page 869; In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Western District: No. 202, April Term, 1908. Maria F. Russell by her Next friend Emma H. Russell vs Charles T. Russell, Appellant. Paper Book of Appellant, pages 7-8.

Russell transcript, page 43. Appellant’s Paper Book, page 8.

Charles Tays Russell’s will is on file at Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Apparently no one repeating the outrageous claim of one individual has bothered to check the original.

Document dated September 2, 1886, relating to Mary Jane Russell’s inheritance found in the probate records of Charles Tays Russell, Allegheny County.

Bill of Sale between C. T. Russell and Bernard M. Block dated February 27, 1896, found in the archives of the *** Center of the *** Archives [We need some surprises, right?]

This sample should be enough to show that this is serious, well-documented history.

More Age to Come Journals

The Important Age To Come Journals

Jonas Wendell

What poof is there that Wendell advocated world burning?

Yes, yes, we all know I can't spell or type. ....

Philadelphia

This is an extract from a letter to the editor published in a Philadelphia newspaper in 1844. We need to locate the original. Can you help?

Some … were not looking for the destruction of the earth, nor for its complete physical renovation, at the present time; they looked for the introduction of the millennium by the personal coming of Christ to the earth; they think this will be the commencement of the promised restitution of all things, to be carried forward until all things shall be made new; they think that probation will close to those who have heard the gospel, but not so with the heathen and all those who have not heard of his fame; they think it will be the beginning of a new dispensation to the heathen, during which it will be emphatically true that the leaves of the tree of life will be for the healing of the nations. These were the published views of Geo. Storrs. … In these views they differed entirely from Mr. Miller and the great body of Advent believers in this country, but agreeing with the Literalists of England (Millennarians) …[1]

---

[1]           Wellcome, op. cit, page 382.

The marriage of Joseph Lytel Russell and Emma Ackley

by Jerome

(slightly abridged from an article on blog 2)

Before the title gives false hope, I must start by saying that this article is a story of failure. However, I am writing in case others have suggestions for further research. Also it may save others a waste of effort travelling down a path I have already furrowed.

I have tried hard to document the wedding of Joseph Lytel Russell and Emma Ackley. Is it important? I would venture Yes – others might opine No. In the late 1890s there was to be family estrangement when CTR advised his father on making his last will and testament, and provision was ultimately made for others – not just Emma. After Joseph’s death, Emma was to support Maria in her legal action against CTR, and the two women spent the rest of their lives together. So the family history side of things is of interest. Also, a key point – we know that John Paton was chosen to conduct CTR’s wedding in March 1879, so who was asked to conduct his father’s?

Most people to date (including the Ackley family history site) have assumed a wedding around 1879, speculating on whether it was before or after that for CTR. Then a crucial piece of evidence came from a recent post from Ton on this blog – the 1880 census. This was taken on June 1st, or at least was expected to reflect events on that date. On June 1st, 1880, we have Emma single, living at the same home with CTR and Maria and Joseph Lytel Russell. It is amusing to note that JLR appears to shave a few years off his age – he is now 60, rather than approaching 67.

So when was the actual wedding? A number of newspapers were published in Pittsburgh at the time, generally replete with the same notices of marriages and deaths. However, on the internet only the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette is currently available through Google News Archives for the key period. (See: http://news.google.com/newspapers) Checking marriages (and deaths) is easy because they nearly always fell on page four of the paper, immediately under advertisements for “Cut Flowers a Speciality” – which has a certain logic about it.

There were always six issues of this paper a week – none on Sundays. It can be established that all the papers online (barring one or two pages) are complete. Where the site says the paper is missing, it is either a Sunday (when no paper was issued) or two issues have been inadvertently joined together in the copying.

Working back from the census, I easily found CTR’s wedding on March 13,1879 (reported in the March 14 issue), and then going forward the notice of the death of W H Conley’s adopted daughter on December 13, 1881. The notice of the latter from the December 15, 1881 issue reads:

Deaths – on Tuesday evening, December 13, 1881, at 10 o’clock, Emma D, adopted daughter of Wm H and Sarah Conley, aged 10 years, 2 months and 18 days. Funeral service at the residence of parents, No. 50 Freemont st, Allegheny, THIS AFTERNOON at 5.30 o’clock. Interment private.

One can speculate whether that personal tragedy propelled Conley in the direction of dealing with medical and social problems in the “here and now”, rather than waiting for “The Age to Come”. But JLR’s wedding has stubbornly refused to appear.

Each issue from the start of January 1880 has been checked – just in case there was a “misunderstanding” when the census enumerator called (highly unlikely, but covering all bases). And then each issue up to the end of December 1881 has been checked – by which time (if her grave marker is to be believed) daughter Mabel was already born. But there is nothing – absolutely nothing.

Over this two year period, there is a David Russel whose marriage notice appears on February 11, 1880, then Charles P Russell whose marriage notice appeared on October 22, 1880, and a Charles A Russell whose announcement appeared on August 18, 1881– but none of these has any apparent connection to our Russell family.

And it must be noted that out of the whole two year run there are twelve issues where the notice of marriages is completely illegible. The dates are:

April 6, 1880
November 22, 1880
December 13, 1880
June 28, 1881 (whole of page 4 missing)
July 8, 14, and 27, 1881
August 2, 4, 12 and 13, 1881
October 12, 1881

This is recorded here, because when other Pittsburgh papers can be consulted, these dates can be quickly checked, just in case by some quirk of researcher’s nightmare Joseph and Emma just happened to be married on one of those dates.

I can think of no reason why their marriage should be secret. True, there was a great disparity in their ages, but it was not uncommon for widowers to marry much younger women, and younger women to willingly accept this in the interests of stability and financial security. Joseph and new family are featured in the pages of Zion’s Watch Tower on occasion in letters. The wills and the funerals are public property – why not the wedding?

And I can think of no reason why their marriage should take place elsewhere. Both were long time residents of Allegheny and Pittsburgh, and that is where their families lived.

Genealogical sites throw up various Joseph Russells and Emma Ackleys – with variant spellings – but to quote from Kipling, so far – never the twain shall meet.

So for me it is white flag time. I have drawn a blank. I am open to suggestions how one might proceed further.

Adventism

1. Russell was never an Adventist. He did not believe, accept or see as meritorious, Adventist teaching.

2. When Russell met him, Storrs had long withdrawn from Millerite Adventism. He left it amidst great controversy and animosity in 1844.

3. Even while a member of the Life and Advent Union, Storrs did not teach standard Adventist doctrine.

4. Stetson, though a member of the Ohio Advent Christian Conference, was an Age-to-Come believer. By the time Russell met him he was contributing articles to The Restitution, a One Faith (NOT Adventist) journal, and advocating doctrines contrary to main stream Adventism. One Faith belief was not a form of Adventism. They rejected that notion entirely.

5. The sole contribution Adventist contacts made to Russell's faith was an understanding of the state of the dead and the trinity. Both of these views are traceable to Storrs.

6. By late 1872 Russell was reading Age to Come material, not Adventist material. He was well known in One Faith circles, and his acquaintances were men like H. V. Reed, Thomas Wilson, and other contributors to The Restitution.

7. Emphasis on Russell's contacts with Adventists is overblown. No doctrine taught by him is traceable to Adventism. Almost every doctrine he taught is a One Faith or other Age to Come doctrine, usually in opposition to Adventism. This even includes his chronological views. By the time he received them Barbour et. al. had left Adventism. Barbour became a partisan of Mark Allen, an Age to Come advocate. Barbour's chronology is traceable to British Literalist writers, none of whom were Adventists.

8. Pointing to Adventist influences as the most important influences is wrong. There are thousands of pages of Age to Come, particularly One Faith, material that has lain unexplored. Before one points to Adventist antecedents one should read that material. It gives a very, very different picture.

9. While Russell saw the 1843 movement as within God's plan, he saw Adventists as "seriously out of the way." Name ONE doctrine that Russell got from an Adventist - someone who was still teaching Millerite doctrine.

10. Russell saw the 1843/4 movement as within God's plan not because of its doctrines, but because of its place in Barbourite chronology, which pinned the midnight cry to 1859 as a mid-point between Miller and Barbour's set-time.

11. Do not buy into the Russell was a secret Adventist theory. (I admit to thinking another word than 'theory.') He wasn't. From 1871 to 1876 he was a One Faith believer, associating with a One Faith congregation, having a recognized One Faith pastor. His doctrine was a compound of Storrs "ages to come" and "fair chance" doctrines and standard Age to Come belief. It was not Adventist in any respect.

12. Russell self-identified as a Millennarian. That is a term One Faithers applied to themselves. Adventists did not use it.

The new book ...

Put optimistically, we’re about half to two-thirds done. I think our new research will present many surprises. Want a taste? Here is a very, very, very rough draft extract from what will be chapter 2. It is from the end of a discussion of differences between One Faith and Adventist belief:

Tensions between Age-to-Come believers and Millerite Adventists were evident from the first. Acrimonious exchanges, partisan labels (ie. Judaizers), and a firm refusal to see any holding Age-to-Come faith as true believers characterized the two first decades of the Advent Christian Society. By the 1870s many believers gravitated to the two independent Age-to-Come bodies, the Christadelphians and the One Faith movement centered on the paper Restitution. This accelerated as the Advent Christians moved from being an association of those who believed in the near return of Christ to a denomination with a narrower doctrinal set.  In the late 1860s complaints against some Advent Christian churches were voiced in The World’s Crisis. These were two-sided. Some congregations, it was said, would not receive any evangelist who did not believe Age-to-Come doctrines, and others would not receive anyone who did.

By the very early 1870s attempts to preserve unity had failed. The Advent Christian Times, through its editor Frank Burr, maintained a constant attack on Age-to-Come belief, especially as represented by the One Faith movement. In mid 1876 Burr wrote an editorial against the movement, suggesting that there should be no “controversy.” His vision of peace was the ostracism of One Faith believers. Amos Sanford, a prominent One Faith evangelist, took up Burr’s attack, accurately assessing it as coming from a well of theological frustration:

Evidently some of the “one faith” contenders, whom he denominates “theological gladiators,” have been attacking him with the “sword of the spirit” and controverting his “advent faith.” He doesn’t seem to care so much for Himself as for his flock whom he advises to have no “controversy” with “theological gladiators,” but to patiently endure “the trying ordeal” He tells them that “the spirit of God is not a spirit of controversy or contention,.” Strange as it may appear, in the very same issue, under the head of “What Next?” the editor enters into a controversy with his brethren, Dr. H. H. Barbour and Wm. C. Thurman. The former he denounces as a “fanatical leader on definite time,” and speaks of his disappointed Brother Thurman in a manner calculated to stir up feelings of unkindness instead of brotherly love. With their controversy I have nothing to do, for the reason that it is about the “advent faith,” and not the “one faith.” But one ca not help reflecting that Adventism had its birth in 1843-4. It was begotten by its partisan leader, “Father Miller,” and brought forth by its mother, “Definite Time.” The Times has heretofore endorsed “Thurman’s Chronology,” and asserted the probability of his ’75 definite time calculation being correct. Now that time is past, and those honest, earnest believers in Adventism are smarting under the failure in their calculations of the prophetic periods, isn’t it a little unkind in friend Burr to cast the same in their teeth?[1]

One Faith believers continued to associate with Adventist congregations through the decade of the seventies because there was little organization among them and few congregations. In 1879, a Mary Bush wrote to S. A. Chaplin, Restitution’s editor, that she and “quite a number of others” were associated with Adventists “because there is nowhere else we can go.” She suggested that Age-to-Come believers who shared her situation could “do them more good by being with them than by withdrawing.” Association with Adventists was frustrating: “They held their annual conference here … . The hall was crowded. I thought what a great opportunity to present a little more gospel, but we did not get it; they have dropped definite time and do not preach quite so much fire, so I think there is some improvement.” Age-to-Come evangelists remained active among Adventists, targeting those with an ear to hear.[2]

Another letter to The Restitution published later that year summarizes the relationship between One Faith and Adventists. Abby A. Perry’s letter told of her experiences in Providence, Rhode Island:

I found among the so-called Adventists there some of the greatest opposers to the age to come, or reign of Christ on David’s throne, future, that I have ever met, but I did not shun to declare the whole counsel of God and his servants on that subject to them; but contended earnestly in public, and in private with them, for the faith once delivered to the saints.[3]

Plainly One Faith and other Age-to-Come believers did not see themselves as Adventists. Their distinctive doctrine marked them as something else. There was, until three quarters of a century later, little peace between the two bodies. The Advent Christian Church defined itself in the 1870s in ways that alienated those who believed in the nearness of Christ’s return but not in the Adventist’s world-burning, spiritualizing doctrine. This is an important fact. Those who see Russell’s connections to Second Adventists as defining him as a closet Adventist miss his vital connections to One Faith belief. To accurately understand his theology, we must recapture the sources of his belief. They are, in point of fact, not derived from Adventism but from One Faith doctrine.

---

[1]               Amos Sanford: Controversy, The Restitution, June 12, 1876.

[2]               Mary Bush, Letter to S. A. Chaplin in the January 22, 1879, issue of Restitution.

[3]               Abby A. Perry, Letter to S. A. Chaplin in the April 16, 1879 issue of Restitution.

Early missionaries

A recent Watchtower article mentions the problems Russell had getting The Plan of the Ages into bookstores, retelling the story of his interaction with Fleming H. Revell. The details are found in the 1907 Convention Report and elsewhere. The article dates this to 1886. This is based on a missreading of the original source material and an apparent lack of knowledge of the 1892-5 replublication of Millennial Dawn under the Saalfield imprint. Saalfield was a job printer, publishing to order. Later the company was a major publisher of Young Adult books. Copies of Plan of the Ages with the Saalfield imprint are probably the rarest of all.

One of Russell's associates dates this event to 1895. This is without doubt the correct date.

Wedding Bell Order

Dear Bruce,
From reading the first chapter of the "Pittsburgh tour" book, I noticed that he didn't know whether father or son Russell was the first to be married to an Ackley sister.
Probably you will know it, but if not, see the webpage

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MW6C-M19

and you will find the contents of the 1880 Unite States census for C. T. Russel (sic).

He is married to Marie F Russell, his father lives in his house as Russel J. L. Russel (sic). And E H Ackly, single.

So the son married definitely first, and the father after the 1880 census.

Ton

Restatement of Rules

We don't accept invitations to pod casts, internet talk shows, youtube subscriptions, or any similar thing. Don't invite us. It's a waste of time. I don’t want to see your youtube videos. We do not want invitations to your youtube channel. We do not want to appear on your controversialist web page. We do not support Moron-ism, which seems to be the predominating religion on the Internet. Do not mail your tracts to us. If you have something you wish us to read, ask first. We do not want to receive your magazines. We have magazines of our own.

We're not here to debate doctrine. We do that aplenty in private. Our blogs are not about doctrine, except as it plays a part in historical narrative. Neither Bruce nor I welcome phone calls. Bruce is old and sick. I'm just cranky. Do not intrude on our privacy. Neither of us will accept home visits, provide interviews on tape or film, or in any way endorse your personal point of view.

Bruce has been a Witness since the very early 1950s. I am not a Witness, but I am sympathetic. Neither of us has much tolerance for nonsense, no matter from whom it may come. We are not sympathetic to unfounded conspiracy theories, badly written 'history,' on rants about non-existent scandals. Wild, unfounded speculation gives me a rash. Don’t expect me to indulge your fantasies. Sending me a photo purporting to show someone drunk when it shows a group sitting around a root beer dispenser will not endear you to me. I may pity you for congenital stupidity, but I won’t engage with you. If a religion has hurt your feelings, we don't want to know it. This blog is not about any of that. This is about accurately and fairly-expressed detailed history. Your personal experiences, while they are as valid as ours, are outside our interest.

Bruce has a very limited presence on the Internet. He has no facebook, twitter or other presence. I have a twitter account and a personal blog where I post nonsense. You are welcome to visit and post on my personal blog, but unless you are fascinated by stories generated by my daughters' antics, bits of speculative fiction, old photographs and utter nonsense from some of my teacher, writer and literary agent friends, it's probably not the place for you.

Do not take things from either of our history blogs and repost them without permission. What appears here is copyrighted. Some of what appears on the private blog belongs to others and is posted with the understanding that we won't circulate it beyond the closed posting. We expect you to cooperate.

We appreciate your curiosity about our research, and we appreciate the huge amount of help that has come from blog readers. However, writing a novel or a history book does not make us public figures.

If you have a book you wish to promote and it is on topic, send it to Bruce. We do not guarantee a favorable review. We will not endorse a book we haven't seen, and we will not pay for the privilege of reviewing your book. Unless you are convinced that your book is well-researched and accurate, you’re probably wasting your time and money to send it to us.

Write something other than the nonsense, the poorly researched, poorly documented, feculent material that passes for Watchtower history. If you can’t write something superior to Gruss, Zydek, or others of that sort, do not bother contacting us.

-Rachael

An essay of sorts ....

On our private blog we’ve posted bits in rough draft of what will be chapter one of our next book. We’re not posting it here, but I will tell you about our research.

Most accounts of Russell’s youth retell the usual story in a paragraph or two. The exception is Zydek’s “biography” of Russell which, unfortunately, is more fiction than truth. Our chapter is about sixty single spaced pages long; it is documented with well over two hundred footnotes referencing nearly 150 original documents, contemporary books, magazines and newspapers. There are at least twenty seldom seen, some never seen in this context, photos or period prints. Included are portraits of two of the Russell’s ministers, one Presbyterian and one Congregationalist.

We tell this story from original records and often in Russell’s own words. We elaborate on what he said, drawing illustrations and explanations from contemporary documents. We identify the public school Russell attended and tell something about it. Russell claimed private tutors. We give significant, never-published detail. We identify the Presbyterian Church to which the Birney-Russell family belonged. From original court records we tell about J. L. Russell’s business successes and failures. We name the Congregational church that young Russell joined, naming and providing biographies for the two pastors with whom he discussed issues of faith.

Russell left a wealth of auto-biographical but seldom consulted comments. We have ferreted them out and used them. They give us a much enlarged and more accurate picture of his younger years and his emotional and intellectual struggles. We correct misstatements made both by his friends and his enemies. We do a significant amount of myth-busting. The last two section of this chapter consider Russell’s business ventures. In important ways his friends and his enemies miss-tell this part of his history. We relay on archival records, including a still extant bill of sale for one of Russell’s stores.

One of Russell’s uncles was a Mason. We know the name of the lodge to which he belonged. One of Russell’s pastors was a Mason. Was Russell? … You’ll have to wait for publication to read our conclusion.

Now on to other things:

While we continue to accept requests for access to the private blog, we are less likely to grant access than we once were. Recent issues have included theft of copyrighted material; an individual who wanted to control our research, fitting it to his agenda; and a personal attack on Mr. Schulz. None of those responsible continue to have blog access, and we are now much more cautious in granting it. Being able to comment in a reasonably intelligent way is a plus. Curiosity alone will no longer get you access. If you want to subscribe, convince us that we should add you to our list.

When we started book two in this series (the Nelson Barbour book being the first), we anticipated producing something of comparable length. We did not anticipate the massive amount of neglected and never read documentation available to us. We’re about two-thirds done. Realistically we are looking at a two volume work. We are tentatively calling it A Separate Identity: Development of Religious Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887.

Our intended audience is academic, though we believe we’ve written with enough verve and fluency that it will appeal to those who are merely curious. There are few enough books on the subject that meet academic standards. Those that exist are flawed by lax, wrong-headed research (eg. Stroup, 1946) or so generalist that the period we consider is dismissed in two or three paragraphs. (eg. Beckford). Some are colored by distaste for the subject. Some only have an academic dress but fail to meet any acceptable standard (eg. Gruss, 1970). Yet, this is the formative period for an important, though fragmented, religious movement. Much of its identity and personality owes its existence to events between 1870 and 1887.

Watch Tower history in this era as usually told is more myth than reality. As with Greek mythology, the tale is told in conflicting ways. Writers manufacture what they do not know, uncritically parrot what they read elsewhere, or write as if what they want to believe is fact when it is not. We have consulted thousands of pages of original documents, periodicals, letters, and other archival material. Some of it is hard to find, but it is out there. While we are experienced researchers, we possess no special gift beyond persistence. If we can find these things, others can too. There is no excuse for the creation of and persistence of a Russell mythology.

We have had helpful contributions of both documents and money, but we fund this from our own pockets. Original research is slw and expensive. . We have been unable to afford copies of some things: [1] Over a year of Jones’ Day Star costs well over 300 dollars for microfilm and printout; [2] An archive of Storrs’ papers costs about 360 dollars to photocopy with no guarantee any of it is useful; [3] Copies of a contemporary magazine rest in a university library. No cost determined yet, but as it is now, it will take a personal visit to see these. We see these as a key resource. [4] A mass of archival material rests in the Library of Congress and in an Episcopal Church archive. This requires a personal visit, the cost of which is prohibitive.

But … we persist. Help comes from surprising quarters. Be patient.

HARRY E HUMPHREY

(Photo taken from Google Images from an old Victor record catalog)

by "Jerome"

Harry E Humphrey was the main voice of the Photodrama of Creation, as well as the voice of the reissued Angelophone recordings found in IBSA catalogs from 1916. As such, he deserves a footnote in Watch Tower history.

Humphrey was born in 1873. In his long career, he was variously described as a monologist, an elocutionist, an actor and recording artist. His heyday was in the years prior to 1925 when audio recordings were acoustic. In those days, raw sound with its limited frequency range was literally collected by a horn and sent to equipment that vibrated a cutting stylus. Recording artistes sometimes had to virtually put their head into the recording horn and shout to get an acceptable result.

Even so, to get sufficient “bite” for this kind of recording a certain voice quality was needed. This determined who became “names” and who fell by the wayside in the early days of sound recording.

Humphrey worked with Thomas Alva Edison, one of whose inventions was the phonograph – originally intended as an office Dictaphone system, before the entertainment world took over. According to the International Movie Database, around the time that Edison produced a system for linking recordings with film to create a sound system called the Kinetophone, Humphrey worked with him in his South Orange laboratories.

The earliest known recording of Humphrey dates from 1912, and from then on into the first half of the 1920s he was very busy. As well as a plethora of Blue Amberol cylinders and Diamond Discs for Edison, Humphrey also recorded discs for other labels like Victor. His output included speeches, poems, explanatory dialog to go with music, and finally – language learning recordings.

If you want a flavor of his style – apart from Watch Tower related recordings – there are quite a few on YouTube. They include famous poems such as Gunga Din (a lovely over the top performance) and famous speeches like Lincoln’s Speech at Gettysburg. Perhaps one of the most entertaining dates from 1922 – Santa Claus Hides in Your Phonograph – Humphrey’s maniacal laugh would be enough to scare the living daylights out of most children of the day.

So when the timbre of CTR’s voice was judged unsuitable for the Photodrama’s main recordings, the Watch Tower Society went to the top man of the day to fill the gap. There appears no evidence that Humphrey took any personal interest in the Bible Student movement; this was simply another job for which he was paid in what were very busy years for him.

He was hired again to help salvage the Angelophone debacle, which has been earlier described on this blog. There were fifty small records issued on which Henry Burr sang hymns on one side, and CTR recorded a short descriptive sermon on the reverse. The recordings were poor due to CTR’s voice quality, exacerbated by his poor health in 1916. After complaints were received, the sermons were re-recorded by Humphrey. The project was probably not helped by the use of the “hill and dale” method of recording – as with cylinders, the needle travelled up and down in the groove rather than from side to side. It meant the discs could be a smaller 7 inch size, but it also meant they could all too easily be damaged by the wrong type of equipment. You were supposed to buy an Acme, Superba or Cabinet Angelophone to play them.

The idea of having music on one side of a disc and a descriptive lecture on the other was quite common at this time, and Humphrey later did a series explaining short operatic pieces on the Edison Diamond label.

The death-knell for his main employment came around 1925, when electrical recording was introduced across the board. Recording deficiencies in a wide range of voices could now be overcome. Also one suspects that Humphrey’s stentorian style – redolent of Victorian recitations – went rapidly out of style in the roaring twenties.

His subsequent career was as an actor. A few appearances in small parts on Broadway are listed, and he is credited with co-writing a play called The Skull c. 1928. It was reviewed as “an old fashioned melodrama” and published in book form in 1937.

Then in the sound era he had a few minor roles in movies. They ranged from the prestigious - Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons, to the less than prestigious - Dick Tracey’s G Men.

Perhaps the nicest gesture was a bit part in the 1940 film, Edison the Man – where the story of his old mentor was given the Hollywood treatment starring Spencer Tracey. Humphrey did not play himself, but had an uncredited bit part as a broker.

Humphrey died in 1947 (aged 73) in Los Angeles County, California.

An observation on the Second Adventist Movement

Russell's theology did not derive from the Millerite movement. He was introduced to Literalist prophetic interpretation by his congregationalist pastor. He examied Adventist teaching, rejecting it in favor of American Literalism, and from 1871 to 1876 he identified with the One Faith movement, not with Millerite Adventism.

The One Faith movement were age-to-come believers. Stetson adopted that theology in 1863, though he remained within the Second Advent communion until his death. Storrs left Millerite Adventism in 1844, and there was constant tension between him and Adventists.

Various age to come and One Faith congregations are often called Age to Come Adventists. They rejected the identity, but sought cooperation with Advent Christians and others. A push to remove age to come believers from AC congregations came to a head in 1874-1878.

Russell was never an Adventist. He was a Millennarian. The Millennarian movement did not derive from the Adventist movement, but preceded it, and was the mainstream in the US and UK. It is nonsense to suggest Russell's theology derived from Adventism. It's unhistorical.

More on this is on the private blog.

The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society

by "Jerome"

We've been getting many visits to this post in the last 2 months. This is curious. Please explain your interest. - R. M. de Vienne

Note: This was abridged from an article originally appearing on blog 2. The complete article with an update has now been reposted on this blog on July 23, 2013, which please see.


Although the Emphatic Diaglott and its publication by the Watch Tower Society come a little later than the main period being researched on this blog, this translation had a major role to play in the early history of the Society.

This article will review that history briefly, but is primarily written to reveal who actually obtained the plates and gave the copyright to the Watch Tower Society in 1902.

Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott was first published in one volume in 1864 and the edition produced by the Fowler and Wells Company of New York was widely used by various Adventist and Age to Come groups. Wilson had been a friend of John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians, but the two ultimately had doctrinal differences and split. While Thomas founded the Christadelphians, Wilson – although strongly anti-organization - had a major role in the founding of the (Age to Come) Church of God of Abrahamic Faith.

The Diaglott’s connection with our history starts when one of Nelson Barbour’s readers, Benjamin Keith, hit upon Wilson’s translation of the Greek word “parousia” as “presence” rather than “coming”. This set minds working on an apparently failed prediction for Christ’s second coming in 1874. If the coming was an invisible presence then their expectations had actually been fulfilled – but invisibly. This view ultimately became a major part of Charles Taze Russell’s belief system. (Hereafter abbreviated to CTR).

Once established, Zion’s Watch Tower Society highly endorsed the Diaglott. In Old Theology Quarterly for April 1893 “Friendly Hints on Bible Study and Students’ Helps” pages 9 and 10, the Diaglott is highly recommended as (quote) another of God’s special blessings for our day...While we cannot say this work is perfect, we can say that we know of no other translation of the New Testament so valuable to the critical student – and this includes all to whom we write (end quote).

At the same time, The Restitution paper carried an advertisement for the Diaglott each week for several decades.

Wilson died in 1900. Shortly after, in 1902, the copyright to the Diaglott was obtained for the Watch Tower Society, and they became its publisher for the next one hundred years. Anyone who wanted to obtain a Diaglott now had to contact the Watch Tower Society.

The Proclaimers book on page 606 made the comment (quote) That same year (1902), the Watch Tower Society came into possession of the printing plates for The Emphatic Diaglott...Those plates and the sole right of publication had been purchased and then given as a gift to the Society (end quote).

The original reference comes from the back page of the Watch Tower for December 15, 1902 (which is not in the reprints). In offering the Diaglott as part of a list of available publications, the blurb stated (quote) For several years a friend, an earnest Bible student, desirous of assisting the readers of our Society's publications, has supplied them through us at a greatly reduced price; now he has purchased the copyright and plates from the Fowler & Wells Co., and presented the same to our Society as a gift, under our assurance that the gift will be used for the furthering of the Truth to the extent of our ability, by such a reduction of price as will permit the poor of the Lord's flock to have this help in the study of the Word. REDUCED PRICES.--These will be sold with ZION'S WATCH TOWER only. (end quote)

So who was this earnest Bible student, anonymous friend and benefactor?

The answer was established in a court hearing in 1907. And it is not rocket science to guess who it really was.

The hearing was in connection with CTR’s difficulties with Maria Russell, and in April 1907 testimony was taken on CTR’s financial situation. At this hearing he explained quite openly how the Society obtained the Diaglott.

He stressed that the aim had been to allow as many as possible to obtain the Diaglott, and so had made it available on a not for profit basis.

Quoting from pages 204-205 of the transcript of the April 1907 hearing, CTR said (quote and CAPITALS MINE)

We publish also a brief New Testament, with an interlinear translation in English, and the marginal translation. It was published originally and for many years, for 30 or 40 years, by Fowler and Wells, of New York. THE PLATES WERE PRESENTED TO THE SOCIETY BY MYSELF. The Society had certain corrections made in the new plates etc., as they were considerably worn, and the edition which Fowler and Wells retailed at $4.00 and wholesaled at $2.66 – 2/3 the Society is now publishing at $1.50 per copy, and it includes postage of 16 cents on this, and as they are nearly all purchased by subscribers to the Watch Tower it goes additional with each volume, and in his subscription to the journal; that is to say, that the Watch Tower for the year and this book that was formerly sold for $4.00 go altogether, with postage included, for $1.50, WITH THE VIEW OF INTERESTING PEOPLE IN THE WATCH TOWER PUBLICATION, and permitting the Watch Tower subscribers to have the Diaglott in every home possible (end of quote).

So CTR personally donated the plates to the Watch Tower Society.

The repairs to the plates extended the life of the Diaglott, and the new price made it more accessible to the public. In addition, throwing in a year’s Watch Tower subscription as part of the deal was adroit proselytizing. For instance, any newcomers to the world of The Restitution who wanted a Diaglott (or wanted just to replace a copy), now had to approach the Watch Tower Society for one. It was perhaps not surprising that attacks on CTR’s theology intensified in The Restitution in the early 20th century.

However, this leaves us with the question: Why did CTR chose to remain anonymous, referring instead to a nameless benefactor?

It is here this writer is on shaky ground, because we have no direct way of knowing. But I can suggest two reasons why CTR might have done this.

First, there are his comments in the booklet A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings published in 1894. In dealing with a query, CTR said on page 45 (quote) I bring my own name as little into prominence as possible. This will be noticed in connection with everything I have published – the O(ld) T(heology) Tracts, the DAWNS, etc. (end quote).

Looking at the tract series and early editions of the Dawns (Studies) one would be hard put to discover the author. CTR indeed kept quite a low profile at this time. That basic desire to keep a personal name out of matters may have influenced CTR’s decision to donate the Diaglott without claiming personal credit.

A second related reason may be tied to another comment from A Conspiracy Exposed, this time page 40. In connection with a business matter, CTR made the comment that he (quote) preferred to avoid any unnecessary notoriety (end quote). Had the world known that CTR had bought the plates and the rights from Fowler and Wells, there could have been uproar in certain quarters. This writer would theorize that if various Age to Come groups who used the Diaglott knew for certain that CTR had personally brought their baby under his control – and now would only make it available with a year’s worth of his journal – promoting his brand of heresy as they saw it – then cries of Foul and Unfair would ring out loud and clear.

There would be rumbles whatever happened, but no name – no direct blame. An anonymous benefactor leading to a publishing organisation generously providing the volume at reduced cost to all was far better P.R.


In fact, CTR did the public a great service. He rescued the Diaglott from potential oblivion with the state of the plates as they were. Then that reduction from $4.00 to $1.50 was well worth having. And for around a hundred years thereafter, the Watch Tower Society made this translation readily available to all. Ultimately the copyright expired and the Society’s inventory dwindled. Since 2004, groups like the Abrahamic Faith Beacon Publishing Society published their own version and viewed the translation as “coming home”. Interestingly, the modern versions published have retailed at a far higher price than the Watchtower Society ever charged, even when they did have a fixed contribution for literature.

Last OTQ - 1911 Reissue

The last Old Theology Quarterly was a 1911 reprint of Tabernacle Shadows.

BSM, EP and PP

On the move to Brooklyn in 1909 the Old Theology Series of tracts was discontinued. It was to be replaced by a new monthly series, which for a while went under three different names, People's Pulpit, Everybody's Paper, and Bible Students Monthly.

The first title was People's Pulpit and Volume 1 Number 1 covered the opening of the Brooklyn Tabernacle. Soon some were issued as Everybody's Paper, which rearranged the contents slightly to allow the back page (in whole or part) to be used to advertize a public lecture - often an overprinted local one (or even scrawled in handwriting in the blank space at times).

Both series were soon being called Bible Students Monthly and this title was added officially. Many of the early issues were reissued with this masthead as volunteer matter. By the beginning of 1913 Bible Students Monthly had won out as the title.

1874-75 Allegheny-Pittsburgh – Adventist or Age to Come? The case of George Storrs and Elder Owen.

Illustrated above are George Stetson’s meetings at Quincy Hall, Allegheny, as reported in The Advent Christian Times in November, 1873, and George Clowes’ meetings at the same address as reported in The Restitution (Age to Come/One Faith) in November, 1874.

by "Jerome"

Note: this is an abridged version of this article. The full article with all the references can be found on blog number 2.


As previously established on this blog, the Allegheny meetings of the early 1870s had an eclectic mix. In the early days Advent Christians and Age to Come believers would often meet together. They were united on their keen interest in the return of Christ and conditional immortality, while generally divided over such subjects as the destiny of Israel, the resurrection, the timing of key events, and the advisability (or otherwise) of date setting.

As long as everyone remained tolerant and unofficial the situation could continue. But while Age to Come believers of the 1870s were independent groups, the Second Adventists were increasingly anxious for recognition as an established religion. This required an official statement of belief covering not just vague generalities but specifics. As George Storrs would put it, writing in Bible Examiner for June 1876, about his distaste for Advent Conferences, (quote) I have seen this process of organizing conferences, especially, with deep sorrow. Next come “Resolutions”, theory of course, at first; but presently dictatorial, next penal (end of quote).

The logical outcome from this was described in Bible Examiner (hereafter abbreviated to BE) for October 1877, where Elder S W Bishop quotes from a resolution passed at the last session of The Advent Christian Association, to the effect that (quote) appointments to preach shall not be passed in their organ, The World’s Crisis, for anyone who believes...the following doctrines...viz...age to come (end quote). Bishop relates tales of those preaching future probation being forced out of churches.

In spite of this, some individuals still managed to straddle the divide through the 1870s. George Stetson was a case in point. Ordained by the Advent Christian Church they claimed him as one of their own, but in the last few years of his life he probably wrote more articles for The Restitution, and his meetings in Edinboro were regularly announced there.

As noted above, Stetson’s 1873 meetings at Quincy Hall in Allegheny were billed as Advent Christian. The local man, George Clowes, had also been claimed as Advent Christian at one point, but as also noted above, by 1874, his ministry at Quincy Hall was now claimed as One Faith, Age to Come.

So which was it to be? Advent Christian or Age to Come?

While the group associated with the Russell family no doubt retained its independence, allowing the majority to link up with Nelson Barbour later, if you had to attach a label, Age to Come believers in future probation (rather than Advent Christian) would be it.

This article will present three lines of evidence to establish this. First, the way their meetings were advertised in the religious press, and then two key visitors whose preaching was accepted by the group.

The first point we have already covered. The November 1874 meetings with Elder Clowes were advertised as Age to Come. As we will see later, the meetings Clowes attended were also attended by Joseph Lytel Russell, William H Conley, and Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR). When Clowes died in 1889 Zion’s Watch Tower published an obituary for him in the March issue (reprints 1110).

Second and third, we have two known visitors to the group.

The first was George Storrs himself, who visited in May 1874 and wrote quite a detailed account of his experiences. Before we try and pigeon-hole Storrs’ theology, it would be useful to outline what happened both before, during and after his visit to Pittsburgh.

Shortly after his magazine became a monthly again, Storrs offered to preach on the subject of Vindication of the Divine Character and Government to any group who would welcome him. The next issue, April 1874, noted that C T Russell and Son had been in touch, as had George Stetson in Edinboro. Another regular Pittsburgh correspondent from this era was C W Buvinger, M.D. Whoever gave the invitation, it was given promptly and Storrs responded promptly. In the May 1874 BE, Storrs announced that he would be in Pittsburgh on the first and second Sundays of that month.

In the June 1874 BE, Storrs’ editorial gives a detailed review of his trip to Pittsburgh. Storrs (quote) found there a small but noble band of friends who upheld with the full hearts the truths advocated by himself. Among them is a preacher who was formerly of the Methodists (end quote). This would appear to be George Clowes.

Storrs reproduced a newspaper review from The Pittsburgh Leader on his talk at the Library Hall. In his talk Storrs refers to “the ages to come” and stresses that (quote) all men have will have an opportunity, if not in this life, in another one...Some may call me Universalist. I am in one sense; I believe that a universal opportunity will be accorded to every son and daughter of Adam (end of quote). Storrs ended his review by thanking the friends in Pittsburgh for their generous support sustaining him and sending him on his way.

Storrs’ visit had an immediate impact. In the same June 1874 issue of BE, under the heading Parcels Sent up to May 25 are several well-known names: Wm H Conley (2 parcels), G D Clowes Snr. and J L Russell and Son (by Express). Sandwiched between the names of Clowes and Russell in the list is a B F Land. It is only conjecture on this writer’s part, but CTR’s sister Margaret, who was about twenty years old at this time, was to marry a Benjamin Land. They had their first child c. 1876. One wonders when and where they met.

Missing of course from this list of eager recipients of Storrs’ materials is CTR – other than the letterhead of J L Russell and Son. However, the very next issue of BE for July 1874, under Letters Received up to June 25, lists C T Russell

So key characters were all in place when Storrs’ visited in May 1874 and preached about the Ages to Come, and when the Restitution advertised Allegheny meetings conducted by Clowes as One Faith in November 1874.

In the December 1874 BE, a belated letter from Joseph Lytel Russell to Storrs was published about the May meeting, apologising for the delay and expressing Joseph’s appreciation for it. Storrs’ responded by saying (quote) Brother Russell is one of our elder brethren, with whom I formed a most agreeable acquaintance while in Pittsburgh last May, and I think of him only to love and respect him (end of quote).

This suggests that Storrs and Joseph Lytel only met in the flesh for the first time at those meetings in May 1874. And there is no mention of CTR in the correspondence. However, assuming CTR was actually there in early May, Storrs would naturally relate more to those nearer his own age.

So George Storrs was a welcomed speaker at Pittsburgh, with whom some at least continued in warm fellowship afterwards.

So, returning to our main point, what does this tell us about the leaning of the group he visited? Was Storrs Age to Come or Advent Christian?

Storrs would probably have denied that he was either. However, his sympathies certainly lay in one direction.

Storrs was fiercely independent, and had restarted Bible Examiner in 1871, after accepting future probation with an inclusiveness that, as noted above, prompted others to accuse him of being universalist.

Future probation had been a hot potato for both Age to Come believers and Adventists, with widely differing views within each group. But in the 1870s the Restitution newspaper at least allowed some debate on the subject. Storrs wrote a number of articles for the Restitution on this theme, as part of an ongoing debate, where some readers accepted the general outline of his views. Storrs’ journal also quoted approvingly from The Restitution on a number of occasions, and. even when disagreeing with them Storrs still addressed them as “dear fellow-laborers”.

So it would be logical for an independent group like the one in Pittsburgh to welcome Storrs as a speaker.

No such rapport can be found between Storrs and the Advent Christian Church throughout the 1870s. One can look in vain for kind words about them in BE.

A few comments directly from Storrs himself about the Advent Christian Church and its organs like The World’s Crisis: (quote) Poor old Rome has some very foolish children...I have nothing but pity for such ...out of their own mouths they are condemned...the same spirit crucified the Lord Jesus...I leave them with their own master...very close to blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (end of quotes).

Some of Storrs’ correspondents were almost apoplectic when mentioning the Advent Christian Church (quote) Unmitigated bigotry...daughters of Rome...covenant breakers...appalling doctrine...as bigoted and sectarian as any other “ists” (end of quotes)

Correspondents sent in material on the assumption that Storrs did not receive The World’s Crisis, and Storrs himself gave a succinct response to one correspondent: I never see the Advent Christian Times!

Storrs summed up his views of both Adventists and Age to Come believers in an article published in July 1876 BE, entitled Adventist View in Error on the End of Probation. He stated (quote) these are painful dilemmas for humane and conscientious Adventists...it makes them secretly hope...that the Age to Come advocates are right (end quote). Then, writing about the Age to Come believer (quote) as he believes in the restoration of Israel and the conversion of them and the Gentile nations, and allows both salvation and probation for such beyond the second advent, he does not burn up the promises of God before they can be fulfilled, like the Adventist (end of quote).

Reading all the above, I think we can safely assume that, had the Allegheny-Pittsburgh group been staunch Advent Christian, there is no way George Storrs would have been on their guest list!

So we have two lines of evidence as to the leanings of the Allegheny-Pittsburgh group in 1874-75 – first, how they were advertised in the religious press and second , how a maverick like Storrs was welcomed.

The third line of evidence is another visitor they had – this time in 1875. And here we come to the interesting case of Elder E Owen.

The November 1875 BE contains a trove of familiar names. Under Letters Received, Storrs notes two from CTR and one from W H Conley. But a little earlier in this issue Storrs published the contents of two other letters, one from Elder G D Clowes and one from J L Russell, both of Pittsburgh.

Both letters expressed support for Storrs’ labours and showed clearly that Clowes and Joseph Lytel were still attending the same meetings. They also give a clue as to the continuing character of those meetings. Clowes writes “Brother Owen is labouring with us”. Joseph Lytel gives a little more detail: “Brother E Owens (sic) of Portsmouth N.H. has been with us on a visit. We were very much pleased with him. I think he is truly a servant of the Lord’s, sent to preach the gospel.”

Elder E Owen (like George Clowes before him) had been claimed as Advent Christian a few years before. He is listed in the World’s Crisis’ speaking lists for 1871, including his home city of Portsmouth, N.H. But by 1875, if not before, he appears to have come to a parting of the ways.

Storrs published several of his letters. The key one was in the issue for April 1874, where, to use a modern expression, Owen has a bit of a rant.

(quote) When so called “men of God” advise congregations to exclude from their houses, and churches, all who believe in the “age to come”, (as was reverently done in this place), I feel to say, God have mercy upon such leaders of the people: for if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. I am fully satisfied the Advent people are growing more and more contracted in sentiment, more and more adverse to investigation; and I am fully aware that spiritual death and declension is inevitable. May God preserve me and as many as can be preserved from imbibing so unfruitful a frame of mind. (end of quote)

Elder Owen had strong feelings over the increasing gulf between Adventists and Age to Come believers and how he had personally fared in the controversy. He clearly eschewed any woolly ecumenical feelings and nailed his colors firmly to the wall. So when George Clowes and Joseph Lytel welcomed Owen with open arms in late 1875 and spoke appreciatively of his ministry, it is obvious which side of the mounting divide they continued to support.

So while the group connected with Joseph Lytel Russell, George D Clowes, William H Conley and CTR may have been independent, its natural home was in the Age to Come family.

And then events took an unexpected turn. Charles Taze Russell met Nelson Barbour.

Lardent Cards

Quite collectable, Lardent cards are often found as bookmarks in old publications of the Watch Tower Society when they become available. They were also used to send messages, so often contain interesting personal information on the reverse sides.

Frederick Jethro Lardent was born in 1885 and lived until 1970. He was an optician by profession, and wrote articles for medical magazines on occasion. He produced two sets of cards – one with the prefix L (obviously for Lardent) which ran to nearly 200 different copies, and one with the prefix F (for Frederick) which were more photographic in nature.

His cards were circulated by all strands of Bible Student opinion until the mid to late-1920s. Then, as the Daily Heavenly Manna was phased out along with other changes, his cards were more circulated by those who left the Society. By 1931 he was on the speaker’s list for a breakaway movement in Britain. He published several anthologies of his cards, such as The Call of the Bride and Comforted of God. He also published a journal which folded about 1941.

In his will he left his printing blocks to Albert Hudson. Hudson, who once described Lardent’s efforts as having “a sublime disregard for copyright” promptly dumped them. This adds a bit to the scarcity value of the product for collectors.

Spot the Difference!

The two rectangular pictures are postcards from the Photodrama of Creation. A set of 40 postcards was advertised in 1917 (see reprints page 6077) – and complete sets have passed through my hands on several occasions, always 40 in number.

However, the two colored cards above are numbered 44 and 47b.

Spot the difference.

However, the square picture is the actual slide used in the Photodrama, which is different yet again. (This original is reproduced in the scenario and would later be reproduced again in a motto postcard numbered L-9 – one of the Lardent series.)

Why did they keep on redrawing (not always very successfully) this particular picture - particularly in the Photodrama postcard series?


And does anyone have details of any other Photodrama postcards higher than 40? There is 47a which has a woman on a veranda overlooking a paradise scene with animals entitled PAX, but I have never seen others higher than 40.

On the private blog ...

I posted an longish section on Russell's early religious experience. We've identified the Congregational Church he associated with and now know the names of the clergy he dealt with. There is information about his early exposure to prophetic speculation and English Literalism while a Congregationalist.

To read this you must ask for access. Contact Mr. Schulz at bwschulz2 at yahoo dot com to request access. Explain your interest briefly. Brief is good.

The Angelophone recordings

With the success of the Photodrama in mind, and the realisation that records were now highly popular, a few Bible Students set up the Angelico Company in 1916. Ostensibly it was to manufacture and sell phonographs, but with each purchase came a set of 50 Angelophone recordings. For some reason they were numbered 49-98, although it is certain that no 1-48 were ever issued. The records were small seven inch discs using the ‘hill and dale’ method to squeeze two minutes on a side at 85 rpm. They were advertised as ‘Old Fireside Hymns’ sung by the celebrated baritone Henry Burr. On the reverse side (also at 85 rpm) were a series of two minute sermons to explain the hymns. These were uncredited, but were Pastor Russell’s own voice. Those who had questions could write to a ‘Free Information Bureau for Angelophone Patrons’. This of course was the Watch Tower Society.

It must have sounded a good idea on paper; reaching people who might be prejudiced by the words Watch Tower. In practice, it was a disaster!

For a start, Henry Burr sounds rather the worse for wear. The hymns contain some high notes that his baritone had considerable difficulty in reaching. Limited to two minutes many hymns were abridged. The reverse side, Pastor Russell’s short sermons – and the only reason the Bible Students would purchase – was even worse! Russell was now in very poor health and died in October 1916. His voice, unsuitable for the Photodrama, was even more unsuitable now. The recordings were very poorly made, and today (without a transcript) much of what is said is indecipherable. It appears to have been the same at the time because complaints flooded in, and the Watch Tower had to announce they had been re-recorded. This time, Harry Humphries was hired again. His voice was slightly slower, so the speed for his recordings was reduced to 80 rpm. There is some improvement, but not a lot, and the records soon ceased production. The Angelophone Hymnal disappeared from the Society’s cost list after 1919.


Note for collectors: there are two issues. The first issue has dark blue paper labels for the ‘Old Fireside Hymns’ and an embossed title for the lectures given (uncredited) by Russell. The second issue has light blue paper labels for the hymns (the words ‘Old Fireside’ are omitted) and off-white paper labels for the lectures given (uncredited) by Humphries.


Taken from “The Watchtower (IBSA) Recordings” published in “The Historic Record” issue 27 (dated April 1993) with kind permission of the author.