2 Among the Second Adventists,
Millenarians, and Age-to-Come Believers: 1869-1874
Wendell’s meeting at Quincy
Hall, led Russell to an examination of the principal strands of prophetic
thought. As Russell defined them these were Second Adventism, “Pre-Millenarianism,”
and “Post-Millenarianism.” Of the three, pre-millennial thought would be most
influential. Russell identified himself as a pre-millenarian rather than an Adventist,
and others would do so with his evident approval. For instance, Russell reprinted
a review of The Day of Vengeance that identified him as a
pre-millennialist, though with a “more exalted idea of prophetic events than is
common” to them.[1] A tract first
published about 1914 and purporting to be by a former Millennial Dawn adherent
calls Russell’s belief system “Millennial Dawnism that is also known as ‘Zion’s
Watch Tower,’ [and] ‘Age-to-come.’” While the tract’s author appears to lie
about her association with Watch Tower belief, one can note from it that even
opponents associated Russell with Age-to-Come belief rather than Adventism.[2]
Russell summarized the
belief systems in an article published in Zion’s Watch Tower.[3] He
said that Second Adventists expect that Christ will soon appear as “a fleshly
being in the sky”:
The Church will be caught up into the air above the
earth and there remain with him, while fire and brimstone are rained upon the
earth, burning it to a cinder. During the time it is burning, and until it
cools off (probably thousands of years), Christ and the Church will be waiting
in the clouds. These will then take possession of the earth, which will become
as the Garden of Eden again. There they expect to “build houses and inhabit
them, plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them, and long enjoy the work of
their hands.” There they expect to reign with Christ as kings and priests – over
whom none can tell (unless it be over one another), since all the rest of
mankind must have long since perished in the burning earth.
While Adventists were and
are premillennialists, they were not within Russell’s definition of Pre-Millenarians.
In America, the term Millenarian was unique to Age-to-Come[4]
believers who congregated around a few periodicals but had little formal
organization. Also known as Literalists, they expected Christ to come “unawares
and gather the Church, and with them leave the world and go to heaven for a few
years”:
During the absence of Christ and the Church, the world
will be full of trouble, distress of nations, pouring out of the vials of wrath
(more or less literal), etc. This trouble and distress will destroy or subdue
unruly sinners, and then Christ Jesus and his church will return to earth and
inhabit a New Jerusalem City which will (literally) descend from the sky.
Christ and his saints--all glorious fleshly beings – [called spiritual as a
compliment to Paul (1 Cor. 15:44-50), though held to be really fleshly] will
then reign over the few of the nations which have survived the trouble. This
reign will last a thousand years. Then the dead, so unfortunate as not to live
during the Millennial age, will be brought out of a “lake of fire” to earth,
and arraigned for mock trial and condemnation before Christ Jesus and his
Church. All will speedily be condemned and sent back to hell for never ending
ages; then Christ and the Church will go to heaven and deliver up the kingdom
to God, even the Father, and the world will be set on fire and melted – possibly
to become, at some future time, again a stage for combat between new races of
men and devils; or possibly to continue to roll through space a blackened
cinder, a lasting memorial of the lost cause of man’s dominion, and of God’s
lack of wisdom in undertaking to establish an earthly government of which man
should be king. (Psa. 8:6.)
He claimed that “Post-Millenarians”
were by far the “largest class” and included nearly all orthodox Christians.
These “claim, and with good reason …, that it would be very absurd to think of
the glorious Christ and his Church (spiritual beings) either building houses
and planting vineyards and enjoying the work of their hands, or reigning and
living in a city in Palestine. They think this would be progress backward and
not forward. During this age, say they, the church walks by faith and not by
sight. … They claim that the Millennium … will be marked by no visible
manifestation of Christ …, but that the Church, in her present condition, will
stem the tide of evil and cause righteousness to prevail, and that thus God’s
kingdom – church – (which they claim is now reigning) will conquer the world,
and bring about the foretold blessedness and happiness to fill the earth. All
this is to be accomplished without Jesus’ personal presence here.”
Russell read the
publications of each group. He quoted their principal authors and read their
journals, but he was most influenced by a subset of the Millenarian
(Age-to-Come, Literalist) movement. The principal approach to prophetic studies
in the United Kingdom and in the United States from the colonial era to Russell’s
day was Literalist. Almost without exception, every important and most minor American
expositors before the Millerite Movement were Literalists. As the name implies,
Literalists believed the prophetic promises should be taken literally.
Spiritualizing prophecy, if done at all, should be limited to those elements
found in apostolic writing.
As a principal of prophetic
interpretation, it arose on the European continent and in the United Kingdom at
nearly the same time. Arguably, it’s an apostolic view with an ages-long
history, but for our purposes we’ll focus on the resurgence of prophetic study
that began near the start of the 17th Century. American Literalists,
especially among Age-to-Come believers, admired the Dutch theologian Campegius
Vetringa. He was a post-millennialist, adopting some of Daniel Whitby’s
pernicious theories,[5]
but his approach to exposition remained Literalist. His principal of
interpretation was “that we must never depart from the literal meaning of the
subject mentioned in its own appropriate name if its principal attributes
square with the subject of the prophecy.”[6]
Johann August Ernesti’s
(1707-1781) dictum that it was right to hold the literal sense to be the only
true interpretation was also much admired by American and British literalists.[7] Other
German prophetic students, notably Johannes Piscator (1546-1625), held similar
beliefs.[8] German
prophetic thought would enter Russell’s notice through J. A. Seiss’s Last
Times. Literalists took the Bible in its plain sense without spiritualizing
it. Adventists were willing to spiritualize some parts of it, finding prophetic
symbolisms in statements taken at face value by others.
Many of those who espoused Millerism came from a Literalist background and
continued to read Literalist works. The
Christian Observer, a British journal,
was republished in the United States. From its first year of publication
(1802), it presented articles on prophecy by Literalist authors. The
American Millenarian and Prophetic Review and The Literalist were
published during the Millerite miss-adventure. Both papers advocated a
plain-sense interpretation. One critic noted that the “central law of
interpretation by which millenarians profess always to be guided is that of
giving the literal sense.”[9] The
Literalist, published by Orrin Rogers of Philadelphia, reprinted of works
by British expositors such as Bickersteth, Brooks, and Cuninghame.
Millerite Second Adventists
read these authors, and were willing to accept Literalist support for the
message of Christ’s near return. Some effort was made to reach out to British
Millenarians though it was rebuffed. Millerites expected some sort of
compromise from British Literalists. It was not forthcoming. Joshua V. Himes
recalled the attempt in terms that show the exchange as less than pleasant:
The Millennarians [sic] holding these views and
looking for the speedy coming of Christ have become very numerous in England,
Ireland, and Scotland. Indeed some of the brightest lights of those countries
are of that school. In 1840 an attempt was made to open an interchange between
the Literalists of England and the Adventists in the United States. But it was
soon discovered that they had as little fellowship for our Anti-Judaizing
notions as we had for their Judaism, and the interchange was broken off.[10]
It is a mistake to attribute
the growth of Literalist belief to Millerite failure. It was the strongly held
belief of many prior to their entry into Millerism and would remain such after
they left the movement. Men such as Joseph Marsh and John Thomas did not
originate Literalism’s characteristic doctrines. They were held by most
Colonial Era expositors. J. S. Hatch, Ephraim Miller, Jr., A. N. Symore, E.
Hoyt, S. A. Chaplin, and Henry Grew, among others, were heavily involved in the
Christian Connexion (aka Christian Connection) before the rise of Millerism.[11] These
men returned to their Literalist, Age-to-Come roots, and to some degree each
would influence Russell’s thinking.
During the 1843-1844 craze,
some Millerites continued to teach Literalist doctrine and circulate books by
British writers to the great distaste of their brethren. This became an issue
when Millerites were impelled into a separate denominational existence.
Previously they saw themselves as representatives of diverse denominations but
brethren on the basis of an earnest belief in Christ’s impending return. With a
move toward unity, abortive though it may have been, doctrinal diversity was
less desirable.
A hallmark of the
Literalist system is belief that God would return the Jews to the Promised Land
probably before conversion. Another doctrine advocated by some Literalists was
a sort of “second probation.” A Millerite conference held at Boston in May 1842
soundly rejected Literalist belief, passing a resolution that condemned both doctrines:
“No portion of the New Testament scriptures give [sic] the most indirect
intimation of the literal restoration of the Jews to old Jerusalem,” the
resolution read. “We believe that the arguments drawn from the Old Testament
prophecies are based on a mistaken view of those prophecies; and that they have
been fulfilled in what the gospel has already done, or remain to be fulfilled
in the gathering of all the spiritual seed of Abraham into the New Jerusalem.”
The resolution claimed that “the notion of the return of the carnal Jews to
Palestine either before or after the Second Advent” was a “snare by which many
will be lost forever.”
Second probationism was
treated similarly: “The notion of a probation after Christ’s coming is a lure
to destruction, entirely contradictory to the word of God.”[12] Whether
one hears the gospel or not, one’s fate is determined now, and one is destined
to heaven or hell during this life. Another issue not raised at the conference
was the fate and endurance of the earth. Probation doctrine teaches that
humanity is on trial in this life.
George Storrs, a well-known
Millerite Adventist, wrote an article refuting belief in the conversion and
return of the Jews. Published in the February 17, 1843, issue of The
Midnight Cry!, the article made several key points:
It is said, “The world cannot come to an end yet, for
the Jews are to be brought in first:” it is added, “God must have some great
design in having kept the Jews a distinct people for the last 1800 years:” and,
it is asked “What can that design be but their conversion to Christianity?”
In reply, I remark, God has not “kept
the Jews a distinct people: Here is the root of the error of our
opponents in regard to the Jews. I will not deny but that they are a distinct
people; but, the question is, who has kept them so? Our opponents say God
has’ but I deny it. God has no more kept the Jews a distinct people than
he has kept drunkards “a distinct people;” or than he has kept Mormons,
or Mohammedans, or Papists, or liars, or any other class of the wicked or
deluded men, “a distinct people.” The fact is, God broke down the “partition
wall” between Jews and Gentiles by the death of his Son; and never intended
that any distinction should exist after “the seed should come to whom
the promise was made.” That “seed is Christ” ….
To talk about God’s Keeping “The Jews a distinct
people,” in the face of such positive declarations of the Bible to the
contrary, it seems to me, shows a strong disposition to maintain a theory at
all hazards.[13]
An emphatic rejection of “Judaizing”
continued throughout the Millerite period. For instance, early in 1844, Enoch Jacobs
published a pamphlet entitled The Doctrine of a Thousand Years Millennium,
and the Return of the Jews to Palestine, Before the Second Advent of Our
Savior, Without Foundation in the Bible.
Defining the Difference
As
disappointed adherents returned to their previous belief systems, Millerites
saw the need to define the difference between Literalist (Soon to be called “Age-to-Come”
belief in America) and Millerite belief. Writing in the May 1844 issue of Advent
Shield, J. V. Himes defined the differences this way:
The distinction between
Adventists and Millennarians, is, – The Millennarians believe in the
pre-millennial advent of Christ, and his personal reign for a thousand years
before the consummation or end of the present world, and creation of the new
heavens and earth, and the descent of the New Jerusalem. While the Adventists believe the end of the world
or age, the destruction of the wicked, the dissolution of the earth, the
renovation of nature, the descent of New
Jerusalem, will be beginning of the thousand years. The Millennarians
believe in the return of the Jews, as such, either before, at, or after the
advent of Christ, to Palestine, to possess that land a thousand years, while the
Adventists believe that all the return of the Jews to that country, will be
the return of all the pious Jews who have ever lived, to the inheritance of the
new earth, in their resurrection state. When Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
with all their natural seed who have been of the faith of Abraham, together
with all pious Gentiles, will stand up together, to enjoy an eternal
inheritance, instead of possessing Canaan for a thousand years.
The Millennarians believe a part of the heathen world will be left on
the earth, to multiply and increase, during the one thousand years, and to be
converted and governed by the glorified saints during that period; while the
Adventist believe that when the Son of Man shall come in his glory, then he
shall be seated on the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered
all nations, and he shall separate them one from the other, as a shepherd
divideth his sheep from the goats. He shall set the sheep on his right hand,
and the goats on his left. That one part will go away into everlasting
(eternal) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. They cannot see any
probation for any nation, either Jew or Gentile, after the Son of Man comes in
his glory, and takes out his own saints from among all nations. They also
believe “God will render indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon
every soul of man that doeth evil, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile, in
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.”
The Millennarians believe that the saints must
have mortal men in a state of probation, for a thousand years, as their
subject, in order for them to reign as kings; for, say they, how can they reign
without subjects? To which the Adventists reply, If it is necessary for
them to have such subjects for a thousand years to reign, by the same rule they
must have them eternally; for “they shall reign forever and ever.” – Rev.
xxii:5.[14]
There
are errors in this definition as there are in any definition of a broad and
varied movement, but this is reasonably accurate. The Age-to-Come movement was
not monolithic but composed of many independently-minded believers and
congregations, each with their own doctrinal system. Historians of these
movements tend to point to the founders of each church system as the originator
of the doctrines. In fact, most of the beliefs seen as unique and developed by
or rediscovered by the “founders” were previously believed by others including
their contemporaries. Age-to-Come belief was the norm prior to the Millerite
movement. Though L. E. Froom (Prophetic Faith of our Fathers) was
anxious to hide the fact, most of the prophetic expositors he describes as
forerunners to the Millerite movement believed Literalist, Age-to-Come
doctrine. The most we can ascribe to Joseph Marsh, the Wilsons, John Thomas and
others like them is a return to or an adaptation of views held by others for
centuries before the Millerite movement.
Russell
had some interaction with most Age-to-Come groups. He was drawn to and
associated with individuals and congregations who centered on The Restitution,
a newspaper most clearly identified with Joseph Marsh’s work and with Benjamin
Wilson and his tribe of relatives. He would write to, visit, preach with, and
identify with many of the most prominent of those who wrote for or preached in
association with Restitution. Many of these congregations adopted names
such as One Faith, Church of God, Church of Christ, or compromise names such as
The Second Advent Church of God. The Restitution was brought to birth by
Thomas Wilson in 1871, and by 1872 he was calling it the “organ of Servants of
Jesus Christ.”[15] In 1873
Wilson described the paper as “the recognized organ of a religious society
known as Marturions.”[16]
There were many independent congregations who disagreed on minor and
sometimes major points of doctrine. Because names were variable and changeable
we will describe them most generally as One Faith.
David Graham wrote that the antecedents
of the Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith) “did not
irresponsibly go to extremes, as did Storrs, to shelter such faction [sic] as
the Russellites, British Israel, or even the Pyramid Theorists, even though
references to them may have been made time and again from various authors.”[17] This
is a misleading, self-serving mythology. Graham’s statement is wrong. Not only
did Russell and his associates find a congenial home among the One Faith
antecedents to the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith), but there was a strong
interest in Pyramid symbolism, particularly in the 1870s and 80s, within the
One Faith movement. Thomas Wilson, Benjamin Wilson’s nephew, wrote frequently
about the symbolism of the Great Pyramid.[18] Jonathan Perkins Weethee, a geologist and college president turned Age-to-Come
believer, was well respected by Restitution’s editors. He believed the
Saxons were the “lost tribes” of Israel, that most white Americans were
descended from Manasseh, and that the Great Pyramid was inspired of God.[19] Restitution
readers and writers formed friendships with Russell, and he found a comfortable
home among the One Faith antecedents to the CoGGC until about 1880 and
continued association with some of its members into the 1890s.
J. P Weethee
By the mid-Twentieth Century, Abrahamic
Faith writers were describing the Age-to-Come movement as Adventist, primarily
because everyone else did. It wasn’t until the 1980s that Jan Stilson pointed
out that Age-to-Come/One Faith believers originally rejected the name Adventist
and held a significantly different doctrine. “The Church of God has
historically coined itself as being Adventist, meaning that it was developed in
the aftermath of the Millerite movement …. This may be a misnomer … Adventists
believed a different set of doctrines than the Age-to-Come advocates.”[20]
There was, in fact, considerable tension between the two groups. By the 1870s
the differences led to irreconcilable animosity. George Stetson who preached in
association with the Advent Christians would complain of it. Others would as
well. J. W. Houghawout and George M. Myers, Age-to-Come evangelists, were
banned by vote of the congregation from ever again preaching to the Advent
Christian congregation in Traer, Iowa. Houghawout’s version of events is a colorful
and accurate portrayal of inter-group tension:
I came out of the M.[ethodist]
E.[piscopal] Church into the Advent Christian Church, but when I began to
preach the restoration of Israel and the reign of Christ and his brethren over
the nation, they cast me out; and as I owned the church building they could not
stop me from preaching, they quit coming and would not hear. This was in
Cherokee. At Traer the Advent Christian church voted that Brother G. M. Myers
and I should never preach in their church again. I hope our Advent friends will
soon see the folly of rejecting the restoration spoken of by all his holy
prophets[21]
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 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 1875 Burr wrote an editorial 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, 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. N. 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 can 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?[22]
Tension
between the two belief systems was not new to the 1870s, but increasing tension
brought matters to a head in that decade. When The Restitution changed
hands in 1874, the Advent Christian Times sniffed that it was “patronized
by a portion of those who believe in probation after the Lord comes.” The
Restitution was, he explained, an exchange, “and we find many excellent
things in it concerning the present age, but when it treats of the Age-to-Come
we are filled with righteous doubt.” Within a few years the Times would
call Age-to-Come belief “trash.”[23]
In
September 1875, Amos Sanford wrote to The Restitution complaining that “the
Adventists refused to meet with us in conferences or general meetings. One of
them had said he would give me a mule if I would join the Advent conference,
and I gave him a chance to ‘come and let us reason together’ to see if it would
be right for me to accept the mule on those conditions. The brethren of the ‘one
faith,’ ‘few in numbers,’ had a good meeting.”[24] Hiram
Reed, then editor of The Restitution, remarked: “The petty persecutions
of professed brethren, who should be our warmest friends, are galling to the
spirit, and help to make this life, God knows troubled enough already, still
more painful. Would they but stop a moment and remember that evil done to God’s
people can do no good, whereas it does the flock … harm, they would perhaps
relent. O when will men bearing the Christ’s name cease to treat each other
with imperious cruelty!”[25]
In
late 1877 the Advent Christian Association passed a resolution ordering that
“appointments to preach shall not be published in their organ, the ‘World’s
Crisis,” for anyone who believes … in … ‘age to come.’” S. W. Bishop
responded by calling it “a relic of the barbarism that has prevailed for
centuries in the mother church.” He said it identified Adventists as a daughter
of Mystic Babylon.[26]
Because
there was little organization and there were few exclusively Age-to-Come congregations,
some One Faith believers continued to associate with Adventists. 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.[27]
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.[28]
The
controversies with Adventists (and among themselves) were extensive and
diverse. A. R. Underwood, Restitution’s editor in the late 1890s, described them as “discussions … over the Three-fact
Gospel, the world-burning theory, the Restoration of Israel, The Age-to-Come
doctrine, what baptism was for, what to believe as pre-requisite to baptism,
the essential gospel, the covenant of promise, etc.”[29]
These controversies defined them as a body, and they also built Russell’s
theology.
By
1880 the best part of Restitution’s relationship with Adventists was
expressed in a letter to the editor which called them “our half-brethren – the
Adventists.”[30] By
1896, W. H. Wilson made a clear distinction between “members of the true Church
of God, and either the First or the Seventh Day Adventists,” adding that “with
regard to communing with Adventists, I would say, what fellowship can obedient
gospel believers have with those who destroy the gospel?”[31] The
anti-Adventist feeling was bitter. An Ira Hall wrote, “I had rather go to a
place where they have never heard anything [of the gospel], than go into a
[World’s] Crisis’ Advent community.”[32]
By this period the two bodies were distinctive in doctrine, point of view, and personality,
and they often would not worship with each other. Another letter to The Restitution
said: “We have a church here. They style themselves Adventists, but do not
fellowship [with] us, so we cannot worship with them. They reject the glorious
doctrine of the age to come.”[33]
Though there was a significant antipathy between the two bodies, prominent
Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) evangelists continued to fellowship with and
sometimes informally debate Russell.
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 Adventists’
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
not derived from Adventism but from One Faith doctrine.
Jonas Wendell
Jonas
Wendell’s preaching was Russell’s introduction to a diverse pre-millennialist
culture. Russell’s description of the dusty, dingy hall and his cursory summary
of their exchanges are almost all the details Russell provides. He says that
this occurred “about 1869.”[34]
And elsewhere he dates his encounter with Wendell to “nearly two years” after
leaving Plymouth Congregational Church.[35] We
can probably date this to sometime after mid-February 1869 and before mid-May
the same year.
Wendell
spoke in Lafayette Hall in late January. Soon after Wendell’s lecture, the
Pittsburgh believers rented Quincy Hall for regular meetings. Notices of
meeting times were published. Russell met Wendell sometime after the Lafeyette
Hall meeting, a conclusion we reach by noting that Russell stepped into their
usual meeting place, their rented hall. Wendell and Russell quickly developed a
friendship, and Russell remembered him as “my friend Jonas Wendell.”[36]
Wendell
was born December 25, 1814, in Minden, Montgomery County, New York, to Jacob
and Magdalena (Snyder) Wendell. They christened him in St. Paul’s Lutheran Church
in Minden Township, on January 22, 1815. Before his conversion to Christianity
and Adventism, he was involved in Whig Party politics, serving as a delegate to
the Young Men’s Whig Senatorial Convention at Saratoga Springs in August 1839.[37]
[1] 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. The review was
by G. M. Fife and is found in the December 3, 1897, John O’Groat Journal,
published in Wick, Scotland.
[2] Emma Doolittle: Millennial Dawnism,
later reprint by Faith Publishing House, Guthrie, Oklahoma, no date but
originally not earlier than 1914.
[4] “Age to come” is a biblical phrase. It
was used early in the Millerite movement, but not always to refer to Literalist
doctrine. The term was not exclusive to Millerites or Literalists but being a
Biblical phrase was used by others.
[5] For a discussion of Whitby’s theories
see Froom’s Prophetic Faith.
[6] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] The resolution is reproduced in full in
L. E. Froom: Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, volume 4, pages 617-618.
[13] G. Storrs: The Return of the Jews, The
Midnight Cry! February 17, 1843, page 1. (Pages are not numbered in this
issue.)
[14] J. V. Himes: The Rise and Progress of
Adventism, Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, pages 47-48.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] 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-Israelitism
& 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 of Our Rest. 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.
[23] Advent Christian Times as quoted
in H. V. Reed: Doubt Castle Invaded, The Restitution, December 16, 1874.
Characterization of Age-to-Come as “trash”: Advent Christian Times, July
18, 1877.
[29] “The Covenants of Promise” Again, The
Restitution, May 10, 1899. Three-fact gospel debate is a reference to
Christadelphian teaching that the gospel is more than the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ and includes "things concerning the kingdom of God
and the name of Jesus Christ."
[30] Letter from P. A. Brown to Editor The
Restitution, found in the July 28, 1880, issue.
[34] C. T. Russell: To Readers of the Herald
of the Morning, Supplement to July 1879 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower.
