FUTURE PROBATION

By "Jerome"

In Bible Examiner (hereafter abbreviated to BE) for October 1877, page 6, the editor George Storrs made one of his periodic pleas for support. While thanking readers for their prayers, he noted that financial help would also be welcome. His paper, he claimed, was unique. He argued “shall the only paper in America that speaks out boldly on this question be compelled to suffer and be crippled for want of funds?” There is an asterisk by the word America, and the footnote reads: “I except “The Herald of the Morning,” a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.”

By this date, Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated as CTR) was supporting the Herald, (and if only the 1877 issues were extant to check, was probably writing for it as well).

Since the same issue of BE has Storrs debating with CTR over the date-setting properties of Three Worlds, it was obviously not Barbour’s chronological gymnastics that appealed. The doctrine or “question” that set The Herald apart from all other current publications in Storrs’ mind was Future Probation.

It is not the purpose of this article to comment on whom might be nearer the truth on the subject, as we are writing history not theology. But future probation had been a contentious issue for Christendom for centuries.

To define the concept – future probation is the belief that in the future individuals could have a testing period with the prospect of eternal life ahead of them. So their everlasting prospects were not just determined by what they did in this life, but they would benefit from a probationary period in the future after resurrection. It was usually (although not exclusively) tied in with a literal Millennial reign by Christ over a literal earth. However, just who might benefit was a bone of contention amongst those espousing the doctrine – would it include “the wicked” or just the “ignorant” like the heathen or unbaptised infants - and if “wicked” how exactly might one define the term?”

Orthodoxy in centuries past came out strongly against such a concept. If individuals did not accept Christ in this life, then that was it, there was no further chance. One example was in the official creed of the established Church of England. In 1552 Archbishop Cranmer produced the “42 Articles of Faith.” Article 42 attacked those who believed in future opportunities after death with the words: “They also are worthy of condemnation who endeavour at this time to restore the dangerous opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when they have suffered pain for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice.” While attacking a Universalist view, and perhaps a further swipe at the Roman Church’s purgatory (already attacked in article 22), it also reaffirmed that the “ungodly” – however defined – had lost out forever at death. Any other view was “a dangerous opinion.” Since the concept of Future Probation requires a location for it to happen – such as the earth during the Millennium – Article 41 of the same document obligingly condemned believers in the Millennium as heretics. However, it should be noted that ten years later in 1562 these articles ended up on the cutting room floor. The Church of England of today has to manage with just 39 Articles.

When this view was coupled with traditional teachings on hell – that all those not accepting Christ in this life were destined for eternal torment – it was perhaps unsurprising that some felt uneasy at the prospect of millions being so condemned. This was especially so if their opportunities to accept Christ in this life had been limited by geography and circumstance. Putting it in very human terms – was that fair? Those raising such questions were not accusing God of being unfair, but were aiming at the theologians who seemed to suggest that the vast majority of mankind would have been better off not being born at all.

One reaction against orthodoxy was to swing to the extreme of Universalism – the concept that eventually all would be saved. Writers such as John Murray in America promoted Universalism in the 18th century. Universal Salvation might take some time – it WOULD take some time – but ultimately that was God’s plan. Some individuals were even sufficiently magnanimous to include the Devil in these calculations. (A few associated with CTR would eventually leave the Bible Student movement to become Universalists, including John Paton and his aptly-titled Larger Hope Publishing Company).

Once interest in the Second Advent drew various people together in the first half of the nineteenth century, another dimension was added by the acceptance by many of conditional immortality. This doctrine taught that immortality was not automatic, but was conditional. Those who did not gain eternal life would gain eternal sleep. That dealt effectively with the concept of a burning hell, but also affected the concept of future probation. If the wicked – whether through intent or ignorance – were just going to sleep forever, that wasn’t so bad, was it? So while future probation was debated by the Advent Christians and Age to Come groups, the majority came out against the concept, or at least had views on salvation more exclusive than inclusive.

Taking the Advent Christians first, their official histories had some tart comments to make on the doctrine. Isaac C. Welcome in “History of the Second Advent Message” (1874), pages 515, 613, laid into George Storrs’ view of “probation after the Advent” as erratic and radical and “very detrimental to the progress of truth and sound doctrine.” The doctrine was “nearly analogous to Universalism.” Albert C. Johnson in “Advent Christian History” (1918), pages 242-243, described 19th century advocates as a kind of fifth column –  “(they were) finally distracted and disorganized by the advocates of future probation theories, who worked their way into the conference quietly until they gained control” – the conference had “been perverted by the age-to-come teachings.”

As suggested by the last quote, Age to Come groups were more sympathetic towards the idea. The first prerequisite for the unsaved to return for their “chance” was somewhere for them to return to, and the Age to Come focus was already on human life for a thousand years. But their paper The Restitution was happy to publish such articles as J.F. Wilcox’s ‘A Major Proposition and its Results’ in July 28, 1875, which categorically pronounced that “the whole...world who have not had God’s revealed word, but who...sinned without law, shall never be raised from the dead...as natural brute beasts they utterly perish in their own corruption.” An article promoting future probation, ‘The Progressive Age’ by Elder J. Parry, was denied publication, so Storrs published it instead in his BE for July 1874. By October 3, 1877, Elder John Foore was writing to The Restitution that he would like the paper “much better if it could be opened for the advanced views such as the blessing of all nations and all kindreds in the age to come.” The request apparently fell on deaf ears.

With other columns denied him, Storrs believed BE to be the primary voice for this doctrine, and fended off critics from all sides. When opponents dubbed the position “second chance” – it was met with the retort that for millions who died in ignorance this was their first chance. When critics then came back with “better chance” – it was met with the riposte, how could that be when now the chance was to be part of the bride of Christ?

Others settled on “fair chance.” As it happened, Storrs didn’t like that description any more than the others (BE October 1875, page 5), but it was more correct – you could say, more fair - in describing his theology

When opposers accused Future Probationists of being closet Universalists – Storrs standard response was that while he did not believe in universal salvation, he did believe in universal opportunity.

And yet Storrs’ position was not quite the same as others believing the doctrine. He defined his position as The Ages to Come. While it sounded like the Age to Come belief in a literal thousand years for humans on earth (and probation for nations then living), Storrs embellished it considerably. He spoke of Ages because he did not believe probation would happen for the dead during the Millennium, but rather after the Millennium in what he called “a succession of ages” or Ages to Come. (BE October 1874, editorial ‘The Ages to Come’). He accepted that not everyone would come back, and had broken with the Life and Advent Union over his belief that wicked dead would not be resurrected; nonetheless, the number would still be sufficient to require potential Ages (plural). And some who came back could still lose out – albeit a minority.

A key scripture for Storrs was Revelation 20 v.5: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” In his article ‘Due Time’ (BE August 1876) Storrs used this to reason that their resurrection and probation had to take place after the Millennium. Others might interpret this as referring to beneficiaries only coming to full life after passing their test at the end of the thousand years. Those opposed to the concept in its various shapes and forms, might dismiss the verse as an interpolation.

Storrs was a major influence on CTR. CTR chose the BE columns for his first known literary efforts, and in ZWT for May 1,1890, singled out Storrs (along with George Stetson) for special mention before recounting how his understanding of the ransom and restitution developed – to encompass far more than he had previously thought. The original May 1, 1890 issue, page 4, has CTR explaining how “in 1873 I came to examine the subject of restitution from the standpoint of the ransom price given by our Lord Jesus for Adam, and consequently for all lost in Adam, it settled the matter of restitution completely, and gave fullest assurance that ALL must come forth from Adamic death and be brought to a clear knowledge of the truth and to fullest opportunity of everlasting life in Christ.”

When CTR reprinted the article in A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings – a special ZWT of 1894, he made several revisions to this paragraph (as found on page 96), including changing the date from 1873 to 1872. All future printings including those from June 15, 1906 (reprints 3821) stick to this revision.

But this was future probation. Without going into details, this was Storrs’ basic message in BE. Storrs had restarted BE in late 1871, after breaking with the Life and Advent Union. We do not know if CTR received Storrs journal then, because the first two years of the revived BE are unavailable. It was a weekly newspaper and may not have survived. But from October 1873 it became a monthly which could be bound into volumes. These have survived, and the Russells are readers from the start. However, they obviously would know of Storrs from his previous reputation. The Russell names are also found in the letters received columns of The Advent Christian Times and the World’s Crisis in the early 1870s – and the Crisis is certainly known to have publicised Storrs’ views by vigorously attacking them at the time.

CTR would claim in ZWT May 1, 1890, page 4, that he brought this concept to Nelson Barbour. “When we first met, he had much to learn from me on the fullness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all.”

All this helps to explain why in October 1877 Storrs would single out “The Herald of the Morning, a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.” as the only journal he believed to be supportive.

Barbour had already submitted an article endorsing future probation to BE, which was published in September 1876. In ‘The Work of Redemption Progressive: or Ages Employed in Accomplishing It’ Barbour stated “there is much positive scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin.”

While the article was sympathetic of Storrs’ views in principle, it was a little short on specifics. And looking closer at the details, there would be a key difference between Storrs’ views and those of Barbour and Russell. As noted above, Storrs taught Ages to Come, and looked beyond the Millennium for future probation to be worked out. In contrast, both Barbour and Russell would favor a more traditional view – that the Millennium was the judgment “day” and that a thousand years would be sufficient.

In Barbour’s Three Worlds (1877) for example, we read on pages 10 and 66: “There is much positive Scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the millennial age, or world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin...It follows that probation must end with the thousand years.”

When CTR began publishing under his own name, he presented the same view. From Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return (1877), page 26: “In (their day of trial, when they are on probation for eternal life) their “day of judgment” (not a 24-hour day, but the millennial or judgment age) they will fare better than the Jews — have fewer stripes.” He elaborated further in Food for Thinking Christians (1881), page 95: “It is their judgment day—one thousand years. During all that time, God’s truth, as a two-edged sword, will be quietly, but surely as now, doing a separating work...The great mass of mankind will learn God’s ways, and delight to walk therein. These he calls his sheep—followers, and during the age they are gradually gathered to his right hand.”

Looking at CTR’s theology overall, this was his main message, a legacy from Storrs, in spirit if not in detail. Yes, the second presence of Christ was a key theme with its chronological framework. Yes, “putting the hose on hell” with conditional immortality was a key platform. Yes, there would be issues like clashes with orthodoxy over the trinity. Nonetheless, in CTR’s mind at the time, future probation – summed up by his slogan “A Ransom for All” was what he believed to be the key message of the Bible. And he made sure as many as possible knew it.

Where we're heading

This is raw material from what will be chapter six or seven. This chapter focuses on new congregations, new workers and the character of the early fellowships. The two men we profile below appear only once in Zion's Watch Tower, but they're representative of many who read the magazine and who carefully considered its contents. We lack detail. That's an constant issue. The story is in the detail. We can't tell you what we do not know.

Please read the following. If you have details to add, please do so. Comments are welcome.

Amon Hipsher and Lorenzo Jackson Baldwin

Amon Hipsher was a resident of Ames, Story County, Iowa. Born in Pennsylvania about 1820, he was a successful and wealthy farmer.[1] Hipsher was active in Church of God (One Faith) conferences. He was elected conference president in December 1874.[2] At a subsequent conference someone objected to him being placed in sole charge of future arrangements, describing the arrangement as Hipsher acting as a “little pope.” This seems to have been an objection only to the arrangement, not a comment on his personality. He declined re-election for the next year at the December 1875 conference. By 1884 the conference was renamed The Christian Conference of Iowa, and Hipsher was elected vice president.[3]

We know little of his religious background prior to 1874 beyond the fact that he subscribed to The Heretic Detector, an anti-Universalist magazine published in Middleburg, Ohio.[4] He lived in areas reached by Stetson and his closest associates, and there is an obvious connection on that level. He was one of the first readers of Zion’s Watch Tower, and in the March 1881 issue Russell addressed a question sent in by him, writing, “Bro. A. Hipsher, for answer to your question: see ‘Unpardonable Sin,’ page 3.”

It appears that Russell wrote his article on unpardonable sin specifically to answer Hipsher’s questions. His approach was interesting [continue]

Lorenzo Jackson Baldwin was another Iowa resident. He was born March 2, 1823, in Vermont and died in Madison County, Iowa. He was a small-time farmer in the Mackenburgh, Iowa, area. In 1883 he wrote to S. A Chaplin, editor of The Restitution, seeking “a boy between 15 and 20 years old” to live with them for “two or three years.” He promised “to send him to school winters and pay wages for eight or nine months in the years.” Baldwin and his wife specifically asked for “a reader of The Restitution and a believer in the gospel of the kingdom.”[5]

Baldwin was also active among One Faith believers in Iowa. We find him attending a One Faith conference in September 1875 with an Elder Baldwin, apparently a relative.[6] We find him noted in the same "questions and answers" article in which we met Hipsher. He apparently asked a flood of questions. Russell’s response was: “Bro. J. Baldwin: It would require the entire space of Z.W.T. for a year or more to answer all your questions in full. We commend to you the reading of all the tracts 3 or 4 times; then read ‘day dawn.’ You need not expect to obtain all the truth on so great and grand a subject at one swallow, it is a continuous eating. You must seek. ‘He that seeketh findeth.’ ‘Then shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord.’ (Hos. 6:3.)”[7]

Based on Russell’s recommendation of Bible Students Tracts numbers one and two, we believe that Baldwin’s questions centered on issues of “second probation” and the reason for and manner of Christ’s return. These were issues that would have raised questions among Russell’s One Faith readers.

It is evident that some considerable interest came from Ohio and Iowa which were strongly Age to Come and had been one of the focus points of Barbour and Russell’s early ministry.

[1] The 1860 Census returns for Story County, Iowa, say his real estate was worth five thousand dollars and his personal property worth five hundred dollars.
[2] Conference Report, The Restitution, January 6, 1875.
[3] “Little Pope”: Report of the Conference Held Near Alden, Iowa, The Restitution, July 25, 1875. Declines Nomination: Iowa, The Restitution¸ December 20, 1875. Vice President: Iowa Conference Report, The Restitution, October 15, 1884.
[4] His subscription is noted in the November 1840 issue.
[5] Mr and Mrs. L. J. Baldwin to Editor Restitution, The Restitution, October 24, 1883.
[6] Mrs. M. V. Duggar: Iowa Conference, The Restitution, September 22, 1875.
[7] C. T. Russell: Questions of Correspondents, Zion’s Watch Tower, March 1881, page 8.

On the private blog ...

We're nearing completion of a lengthy biography of George Storrs, focusing on his separation and conflict with Millerite Adventism, his adoption of Age to Come belief and similar matters. We have corrected a generally circulated error about the influence of John T. Walsh, identified John Thomas, not Walsh, as the individual who introduced Non-resurrection of the wicked dead doctrine to Examiner readers, and documented Storrs' continued Age to Come belief while in the Life and Advent Union.

We correct standard misconceptions about the LaAU. My impression is that almost no one who's written about it since 1880 bothered to read the original material, certianly none of those who see this as Storrs' return to Adventism did so. We're writing up Storrs separation from the LaAU this week and maybe into next.

This is part three of chapter two. The full chapter consists of the life details of Wendell, Stetson, and Storrs as they relate to the Russells. This is followed by a general discussion of Russell's interactions with Adventist and Age-to-Come believers and his association with the One Faith movement.

We are accepting requests to join the private blog. Not every request will receive a positive response. We're looking for those who can contribute in some way. If you are interested, email one of us, tell us something about your self and why you're interested. If you think you can contribute to our research in someway, say that too.

Do any of you have ...

The May 23, 1844, Midnight Cry? We need to see the full text of Miller's letter re Storrs found in that issue.

Storrs preached here to a Chruch of God congregation in the 1850s

john t. walsh

Walsh is credited with introducing the non-resurrection of the wicked dead doctrine to Storrs. Within the documentation we have (original, not secondary sources), it appears that John Thomas did that in an article in the December 1847 Bible Examiner. Everyone says Walsh did it. Every secondary source we have says that was Walsh. People who should know say it was Walsh. We can't find anything to indicate Walsh adopted the idea before Thomas did, but we also don't have most of the Examiner for 1847. Can you help us solve this puzzle?

We need to see this ...

Teachings of "millenial dawn" shown to be unscriptural : being a brief review of doctrines found in their own published works

Author: G F Haines

Publisher: Boston : Advent Christian Publication Society, 1908

Anyone?

A snippet from chapter 2 of next book. Rough Draft only

Life and Advent Union

            In 1863 Storrs and his associates formed the Life and Advent Union to promote the teaching that the wicked dead would not be resurrected. Storrs was elected president [insert others] and the editor of a new journal, The Herald of Life and the Coming Kingdom. We do not know if this intentionally echoed the title of Elias Smith’s Herald of Life and Immortality, though we strongly suspect it did. It is important to note that they were united only by this doctrine. Animosity flowed from Second Adventists, including those associated with the Seventh-day sect, and some congregations voted to exclude Life and Advent speakers. However, until the mid-1870s, LaAU speakers participated in the Advent Christian ministry and spoke at their conferences.

The Life and Advent Union was not seen as a separate church. In this era neither the Advent Christian Association nor the Union, were churches in their own right, but associations of people, many of whom belonged to other churches, focused on a particular doctrine. More modern writers, especially polemicists, lose sight of this. Some have never grasped the point. They simply do not understand this era. Their research is shallow, or they parrot what others, equally uninformed, have written. Some slant the story to fit a polemic.  Neither group could fairly be described as a church until the late 1870s.

It is a mistake to see Storrs’ participation as a return to Millerite Adventism. None of those who remained Millerites saw it that way. He did not abandon his Literalist beliefs, but continued to advocate them. There were Adventists in the Union. Most of its adherents came from among Adventists. But some, including Storrs, no longer counted themselves as Millerite Adventists, and a goodly portion of The Herald of Life’s readership came from outside the Adventism.[1] The early advertisements for it focused on distinctively Age-to-Come doctrine rather than Millerite belief. As with most of magazines and papers focused on Christ’s return and more narrowly focused on a specific doctrine, it never achieved a significant circulation.[2]

Advertisement from the January 30, 1864, Scientific American. Note the Age-to-Come phrasing. [photo caption]

            Most Adventists and Age-to-Come believers rejected the doctrine. Horace Hastings wrote and published a tract entitled Retribution to voice his objections. He adopted an argument he found objectionable when it came from hell-fire advocates. Hastings, though widely praised later for his Anti-Infidel Library, was a vain, self-promoter who frequently commented negatively on other’s writing and reasoning ability, and circulated photos of himself to those who admired him. While denying to hellfire believers the claim that “soul sleep” tended to foster immorality, he adopted that argument to refute Storrs and his fellows:

The moral bearings of a doctrine which teaches that to every sinner ‘death is an eternal sleep;’ that they shall not all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one shall not give account of himself to God; that God shall not bring every work into judgment; that there shall not be a resurrection of the, dead, just and unjust; that they that have done evil shall not come forth to the resurrection of condemnation; that no sinner need to meet his blasphemed and insulted God in judgment; that a pistol-ball, a dagger, or a cup of poison, can, in an hour, put the vilest transgressor where neither God nor man can judge him for his iniquities, or punish him for his crimes; that he who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the redeeming blood an unholy thing, shall not be counted worthy of a ‘sorer punishment’ than all, both righteous and wicked, receive in natural death; that there is no cause for ‘a certain fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indignation’ by those who ‘sin willfully, after’ they ‘have received the knowledge of the truth;’ … the moral bearings, I say, of such a doctrine as this are proper subjects of serious consideration. … A mother, after her youthful daughters had been associated with a preacher who taught this doctrine, told me how they drew inferences of impunity in sin, and security in impenitence, which they could mention and act upon, even though he might not be affected by them. I myself have been met with the same objection, when I have sought to warn unconverted men to repent and turn to God. ‘If we die, and that is the last of us, it is no great loss.’[3]

---

[1]           This continued to be true into the 1930s. Religious Bodies: 1936, Volume II, Part 1; Denominations A to J Statistics, History, Doctrine, Organization and Work, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1936 (1941 edition), page 41, notes that “a number of people hold the views of the Union who are not enrolled in its organized churches.”

[2]           S. M. Jackson [Editor]: Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, New York, 1891, page 18, estimates that it had a circulation of 1000 in 1890.

[3]           H. L. Hastings: Retribution: The Doom of the Ungodly After the Resurrection of the Dead, just and Unjust, Boston, 1862, second edition, pages 154-155.

January 30, 1864, Scientific American

Note the Age to Come phrasing.

Storrs preached here every Sunday in the late 1840s and early 1850s.

Good stuff ...

We sent a partially completed chapter off to Jan Stilson, a historian who writes about Arbrahamic Faith issues. The Abrahamic Faith congregations overlap Watch Tower history in the 1870-1900 period. Also called One Faith, Russell associated with them for some years. Her response was:

Rachael; I read this quickly, some parts more thoroughly than others. Wow. You have done extensive research and written a very thorough document. it is quite readable, not stuffy. I think all your analyses about the interactions of the Literalists, the Age to Come, the Various Adventists and Russell are spot on. I don't find anything to complain about. Also, you hit the nail on the head with David G*****. He has done extensive research but his analysis is not always to be trusted. I look forward to seeing the finished book.

Bruce sent the same material to a writer for a major religious magazine whose interest is in the same area as ours. He made favorable comments too. We can't reproduce them because of confidentiality issues. But we are happy to have them.

Today on the private blog ...

Jerome has written a well-researched article on the interplay between Adventists, Age to Come belief and Russell's place in the Age to Come movement.

We are open to requests to read the blog, but mere curiosity will not get you access. We're sorry that this is so, but bad experiences from both sides of the isle have made some caution necessary. Tell us who you are, why you want to see it, and if you think you can contribute something beyond curiosity.

The prime rule is that what is on the private blog stays there. You may not copy it to your web site, use it in your book, article or controversial post. You many not link to it.

Today ... on the Invitation Only Blog

I've posted the first section of Chapter 2 of our work in progress. It defines the broad influences on Russell's theology, pointing to Age-to-Come belief as promoted by the Wilsons and others through The Restititution, a newspaper published in Indiana.

We find that the quality of research is often reflected by the footnotes. An educated eye can distinguish research into secondary sources  in the guise of primary sources. When we research we check what others claim and we check their sources. You have no idea how often the footnotes found in books that purport to be serious schollarly efforts betray the writer.

Here are the footnotes from our chapter two. I think they show the quality of our research. Do not expect us to post this chapter on the open blog (this blog.) Unless you are member of the other blog, you won't see it until publication. But I will let you see the footnotes:

[1]           C. T. Russell: Harvest Siftings and Gatherings, Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, page 229.

[2]           Russell self-identifies as a pre-millennialist in an interview published in the December 26, 1878, issue of the Indianapolis, Indiana, Sentinel. The review from John O’Groat Journal is copied in the March 1, 1898, issue of Zion’s Watch Tower, page 80.

[3]           Emma Doolittle: Millennial Dawnism, later reprint by Faith Publishing House, Guthrie, Oklahoma, no date but originally not earlier than 1914.

[4]           Hatchet: Destiny of Man in the Ages to Come, The Millenarian, February 1887, page 1. Vitringa (1659-1722) was professor of Oriental languages and later professor of Theology and sacred history at the University of Franeker. His major prophetic statement was Anacrisis Apocalypsios Johannis Apostoli, published in 1719.

[5]           Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, 1761.

[6]           J. Piscator: Commentarii in Omnes Libros Novi Testamenti, 1613.

[7]           Modern Millenarianism, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, January 1853, page 68.

[8]           J. V. Himes: The Rise and Progress of Adventism, Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, page 92.

[9]           For a helpful article see David Graham: The Age-to-Come Influence of Elias Smith, Church of God General Conference History News Letter, Summer, 1984, page 1. The claim that Elias Smith was the first to preach Age-to-Come made in the Editorial accompanying the article, (see page 10) is, of course, false.

[10]          The resolution is reproduced in full in L. E. Froom: Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, volume 4, pages 617-618.

[11]          G. Storrs: The Return of the Jews, The Midnight Cry! February 17, 1843, page 1. (Pages are not numbered in this issue.)

[12]          J. V. Himes: The Rise and Progress of Adventism, Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, pages 47-48.

[13]          The Story of Chicago in Connection with the Printing Business, Regan Printing House, Chicago, 1912, page 203. Rowell’s American Newspaper Directory, 1872 edition, page 31.

[14]          Rowell’s American Newspaper Directory, 1873 edition, page 53. Marturion is the Greek word for Testimony. Wilson’s conception was of a society of witnesses to God’s word and work.

[15]          David Graham: The Old Union Church and the Church of God Abrahamic Faith in Indiana, Church of God General Conference History Newsletter, Autumn 1984, footnote 8 on page 7.

[16]          Thomas Wilson wrote in Our Rest: “I have been for some time prayerfully engaged in the study of that greatest wonder of earth (The Great Pyramid), 'the witness,' and the Lord has at last blessed my investigations by revealing to me what I sought after, viz., a perfect chronology, reaching back to the beginning of the world. I have felt impressed for some time with the idea that this building of His, so perfect in all other respects, would not fall short here, and so it has proven. The testimony is gradually being given, and in every instance it witnesses for the truth of that good old book, the Holy Bible.” – Quoted in B. W. Savile: Anglo-Israeliteism & the Great Pyramid, London, 1880, page 102. Wilson wrote a series of articles on the Great Pyramid in the 1880s. Two of the most significant are found in the January and November issues. These were picked up and commented on by The International Standard: A Magazine Devoted to … The Great Pyramid. See the May 1884 issue, pages 117, 124.

[17]          Jan Stilson: Editorial, Church of God General Conference History Newsletter, Autumn 1984.

[18]          J. W. Houghawout: Report of Labors, The Restitution, August 14, 1878.

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

[20]          AC Times as quoted in H. V. Reed: Doubt Castle Invaded, The Restitution, December 16, 1874. Characterization of Age-to-Come as “trash”: AC Times, July 18, 1877.

[21]          David Graham: A Short History of Anti-Sectarianism in the Church of God, Church of God General Conference History Newsletter, December 1992/January 1993, page 1ff.

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

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

The next section should go up in a few days. It profiles Jonas Wendell in detail not found anywhere else.

Convention Ribbon

J. T. Walsh

Walsh and Storrs associated for a period in the 1840s and 50s. A biography of Walsh is found here:
http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/17021

Rose Ball

Do we know the name of Rose Ball's father?

Roberto ...

Some of your questions may be answered by the new post on the private blog.

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.