Comments are welcome. If you feel we have something wrong, tell us, but back it up with documentation. If we see active participation on this blog, I'll be more inclined to post greater detail here.
Co-Believers
Zion’s Watch Tower believers
did not constitute an independent religion in 1879 or for some years afterward.
As we demonstrated in volume one of this book, they were unified only by belief
that Christ was (or might be) invisibly present. In many other respects they
were disunited. They read a variety of religious papers other than Herald of
the Morning and Zion’s Watch Tower. Some of them continued to hold
to Inherent Immortality Doctrine. Barbour recounts an instance of that during
the Atonement debate, and Russell’s visit to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, was
hosted by H. E. Hoke, an Evangelical Adventist who believed Inherent
Immortality doctrine.
The basis for their unity was a
broad agreement on the nature and time of Christ’s return and a semblance of
agreement on the Ransom. Any unity on Ransom doctrine was more of a united
opposition to Barbour’s views than an actual theological agreement. Russell was
aware of and comfortable with differences and inserted an announcement on the
first page of Zion’s Watch Tower disclaiming responsibility for the
views expressed by contributors: “In no case will the Editor be responsible for
all sentiments expressed by correspondents, nor is he to be understood as
indorsing every expression in articles selected from other periodicals.”
Russell and his associates sought to
persuade the small groups that had been sympathetic to The Herald of the
Morning. Paton traveled extensively while Russell remained in Allegheny
preparing for the release of Zion’s Watch Tower, but as soon as the new
magazine was up and running Russell arranged preaching tours of his own. The
first issue of The Watch Tower announced a new hymnal, Songs of the
Bride, edited by William I. Mann, and an advertisement for Russell’s
booklet, Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. The lack of other
publications meant that their new magazine was their primary voice.
In the second issue, Russell noted
that he had sent out six thousand copies of the July and August issues and
invited subscriptions. He noted that he couldn’t continue sending free copies
because:
First,
it is expensive, and second, we have no desire to waste truth by sending where
it is not desired and would not be appreciated. We would like therefore to hear
from all who want the paper regularly before the tenth day of August, that we
may know what number of copies to publish for September.
The
price is very low in order to suit the purses of the majority of the interested
ones, among whom are “not many rich,” (for “God hath chosen the poor of this
world, rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom.”) and unless a good large list of subscribers
are had, fifty cents will fall far short of paying for printing, &c.
Do
not suppose these remarks to be an appeal for money. No, “Zion’s Watch Tower” has,
we believe Jehovah for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg
nor petition men for support. When He who says: “All the gold and silver of the
mountains are mine,” fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to
be time to suspend the publication.
Do
not put off until to-morrow what you can do to-day. If you want the September
No. take your pen at once. Remember that the paper is as free to you if too
poor to send the fifty cents as though you could afford it and paid for it, but
we cannot know your circumstances --You must write also.
Recently
anti-Russell polemicists have insisted that Russell stole the Herald of the
Morning subscription list from Barbour. While the names on that list were
probably included among the six thousand to whom Zion’s Watch Tower was
sent, seeing Russell as a thief is ludicrous. Though Barbour later denied it,
Russell was part owner of The Herald. There is no clearer indication of
this than the statement found in the earlier issues that the Herald was
published jointly by Russell and Barbour. On researcher suggests that the
Russell’s very close friend George Storrs may have made the names on his
subscription list available. While this may seem likely, Russell never explained
how the list was developed.
With the second issue, Russell explained that the magazine’s
sub-title, Herald of Christ’s Presence, explained their message. Christ was
present and had been since 1874 and they were in the Harvest Age: “We think we
have good solid reasons – not imaginations – not dreams nor visions, but Bible
evidences (known to the majority of our readers) that we are now “in the days
of the Son;” that “the day of the Lord” has come, and Jesus, a spiritual body,
is present, harvesting the Gospel age.”
Russell’s long-time friend George Washington Stetson died on October 9, 1879 , after a prolonged
illness. Stetson’s dying request was that Russell preach the funeral oration,
and, though other ministers participated, Russell was the principal speaker. An
unintended consequence was enlarging the sphere of those who heard his message.
Because none of the churches were large enough, the funeral services were held
at Normal Hall on the grounds of what was then Edinboro State Teachers College:
“About twelve hundred persons attended the funeral services, thus giving
evidence of the high esteem in which our brother was held,” Russell wrote. By
comparison, the Second Adventist and One Faith unity congregation at Edinboro
numbered about one hundred in 1873.
The subscription list grew. The same issue contained a request of spare copies of the
October 1879 magazine. Russell sought about fifty copies to fill a shortage
caused by new subscriptions. Reader
response to the request for extra copies of the October issue encouraged him.
Many of the copies received were heavily marked and well studied. Russell was
pleased with this:
Very many of the papers returned were liberally
underscored etc., and gave evidence of interest and careful and prayerful
reading which was very interesting and pleasant for the editor to notice.
Although not laboring for the “praise of men” nor “seeking praise one of
another;” yet every such indication of your interest in the work we have so
deeply at heart, gives us fresh strength and joy.
The kind words received from many of you during the past six months have been duly appreciated also. Although we have not been able to answer you, they have afforded your editor pleasure and comfort, and that was doubtless your object. We seldom publish letters, of correspondents, because firstly, we have no room to spare, and secondly, they generally contain personal allusion to the writers too complimentary to admit of publication.
Russell quoted from two letters.
The first explained how deeply they treasured The Watch Tower. The writer, a
sister V. N. J. from Springfield, Massachusetts, said, “I read them over and
over, lend them, but never give them away for they are as choice to me as gold
dust. As I read, I mark and comment for my own benefit.” The second
correspondent recounted that a friend had given her copies to read, and she had
subscribed. This represents the most typical form of Watch Tower evangelism in
the era. Interestingly, the last writer said, “As I am 83 years old and unable
to canvas I have secured the services of a young lady to do so for me.”
In March 1880, Russell again
offered the last few hundred copies of Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return.
They were made available at sixty cents a dozen, thirty cents for six, or free
to those who couldn’t afford them and would “use them judiciously.” And another
small announcement was included saying that “Invitations to hold meetings may
be addressed either to the editor (mentioning whom you wish to have), or direct
to the brethren.”
Seeking Unity Among Scattered BelieversRussell proposed a major preaching tour eastward from Pittsburgh. He wanted it to effect unity among scattered believers. In many places subscribers were “totally unacquainted with each other” and thus lost “the sympathy and comfort which our Father designed should come to them by ‘The assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is.’” Russell hoped that “The proposed meetings … might conduce to personal acquaintance.”
Seeking Unity Among Scattered BelieversRussell proposed a major preaching tour eastward from Pittsburgh. He wanted it to effect unity among scattered believers. In many places subscribers were “totally unacquainted with each other” and thus lost “the sympathy and comfort which our Father designed should come to them by ‘The assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is.’” Russell hoped that “The proposed meetings … might conduce to personal acquaintance.”
Entering
the Field
Albert Jones felt called to
evangelize sometime in November 1879. He asked to be excused from his post as a
“special contributor” to Zion’s Watch Tower. Russell announced this is
the December issue:
Bro.
A. D. Jones felt a strong desire for some time to give more of his time to
preaching the glad tidings. He started out this month, going wherever the Lord
may open the way. God will bless him in his endeavor to bless others. May he be
used to the glory of our Lord.
Our
brother has other [business] calls upon whatever spare time he may have, and
asks to be excused as a regular correspondent; so what is the people’s gain
is the Watch Tower’s loss. We hope, however, for occasional brief
articles from his pen.
Brooklyn, New York, Eagle
[develop]
The same issue that announced Jones’
evangelical call contained this announcement: “Almost all the brethren whose
names appear on our list as regular contributors, the editor, and three others
who do not write for Zion’s Watch Tower,
but who are in sympathy and accord with its teachings, are preaching the good
news wherever the Lord of the Harvest opens the way. Requests for their services may be sent to
this office.” We are uncertain who the “three others” were. One of them may
have been J. S. Lawver.
Paton’s
Preaching Tour
Paton planned a preaching tour of
the mid-west which was noticed in the January 1880, Watch Tower: “Bro
Paton purposes visiting several places in Indiana, Illinois and Iowa during
January and February. Any living in that direction who desire meeting should
address him at once.” The February issue noted that Paton’s trip was
delayed while he was writing “a book which will be of general interest to you
all.” He
made the trip in March or April. We couldn’t find any newspaper notices of this
trip. The only notice is found in a letter from Avis Hamlin to Barbour, dated
April 1880. Though Hamlin would briefly adopt Watch Tower theology, ending up
with Paton’s brand of Universal Salvation, in 1880 she was sympathetic to
Barbour. She was unhappy with Paton’s visit. She was away when he was in
Elyria, Ohio, and returned to find “things a good deal mixed,” her quaint way
of describing controversy in the congregation. Barbour visited briefly
afterward, apparently by her invitation. His visit swayed the congregation back
to Barbour’s new theology. Vacillation among believers in Elyria would end in
some months, but in early 1880 Avis Hamlin thanked God for Barbour’s visit and
believed his newly expressed prophetic scheme.
The situation in Elyria was probably typical of that elsewhere.
We don’t have a verifiable itinerary,
though we have possible, even likely, locations for Paton’s preaching tour.
Letters expressing interest appear in the Herald of the Morning, many of
which come from the Mid-Western States. Details are often lacking for names
found in the Money Received columns, leaving us with names only or a name and a
state of origin. Some are more specific and we can trace the names to specific
persons. The biographies, such as they are, of those we can identify tell us
much about the kind of person interested in the Barbourite and later Watch
Tower movements
Dr. Victor Caillot, born France 1838-39 and resident near
Plymouth, Indiana, wrote in 1878. His name is in one of the money received
columns. William N. Sarvis, who lived near Dwight, Illinois, was a subscriber.
An R. C. Laine wrote from West Jersey, Illinois. He appears but once in the Herald,
in the July 1875 issue. He wasn’t an Adventist, but was strongly interested in
Christ’s return. There was a Second Adventist congregation in West Jersey, but
we don’t know if they were described as such only because they looked for the
near return of Christ or if they were truly Adventists.
Hiram Willett [also spelled Willitt], a hardware merchant of
Toulon, Illinois, described himself as “an old ‘43 believer.” Willetts are mentioned in Restitution as Age-to-Come believers, but we
couldn’t locate Hiram’s name there. Toulon was about nine miles from West
Jersey by wagon road. Willett and Laine almost certainly knew each other.
After the Millerite disappointment Willett turned to the
Baptist Church. With a majority of the congregation, he withdrew in February
1868 and formed a new Baptist congregation. Division, back-biting, and other
abuses were cited. A local history recounted the trouble:
Abuses
of power on the one hand, and fierce resistance on the other, charges,
conflicts of opinion, expulsions for heresy, impeachment and excommunication of
one leader, only to effect a change, not a redress of grievances, until after a
bitter experience with a so-called revivalist, Elder S. A. Estee, February
1868, it was finally “resolved, that whereas, the troubles and difficulties
existing in the First Baptist Church of Toulon have reached so great a
magnitude, that we can see no way of settling them so we can live in peace, and
advance the cause of Christ, therefore, resolved, that all the members of this
church who subscribe to this resolution, have the privilege of asking for
letters of dismission, and that the same be granted by the church.”
Here
now was revolution and secession all in a nutshell; and a fiercer than
political contest was waged by a few determined spirits to prevent the
dissolution of the old church; but the majority triumphed and the vote to
disband was cast February 29th, 1868 .
And “all the property of the first Church, was to be surrendered to a
committee, to be held for the benefit of another Baptist church hereafter to be
organized.” This majority then adjourned “to meet in Mr. Hiram Willett’s store
building the next Sunday morning at 10½ o’clock .”
Willett withdrew from the Baptists
in 1870, “because he ‘could no longer conscientiously maintain and indorse the
articles of faith as interpreted by the church.’” A contemporary writer looked
with distain on the disruptive, abusive Baptist churches of Toulon, Illinois.
Recounting the divisions, he wrote:
Probably
the generation that took part in the conflict of 1868, must pass from the scene
of action, ere all the old wounds will heal. But we can hardly forbear to note
in passing, that this body in two years after its formation, gave proof of its
legitimate descent, by withdrawing fellowship from Mr. Hiram Willett, because
“he could no longer conscientiously maintain and endorse the articles of faith
as interpreted by the church.” Is there not, a suggestion of that famous
Procrustean bedstead of Attica, in such creeds?
There
is no whisper of immorality against this man, no charge of duty neglected; on
the contrary, he was, until this change of opinion, a pillar of the church. But
he comes to believe “that the second coming of Christ is near at hand, that the
weight of evidence in the Scriptures represents the dead in an unconscious
state until the resurrection; also, that in the judgment day the wicked shall
be destroyed with an everlasting destruction, but the righteous be received
into life eternal.” Consequently he is a heretic, judged by Baptist standards,
or the standards of many other orthodox churches. And this may be all right; we
but record it, as a scrap of church history for 1870. But … we would ask no better
material out of which to mould a progressive religious organization, than that
which has been condemned by these two Baptist churches, as heretical in the
last twenty-five or thirty years.
There were other Second Adventists
in the area, found primarily among the Swedish settlers. A congregation of
“independent Adventists” looked forward to the April 1875 date promoted by
Barbour and Thurman. We do not know if Willett associated with them.
Documentation is slight and conflicting.
James G. Mitchell of Bristol,
Indiana, entered the movement in mid to late 1877. A letter from him to Barbour
dated August 24, 1878 ,
appears in the September 1877 Herald of the Morning:
I
… have examined your argument carefully, with a desire to know the truth. I
have received more light in reading those papers than in reading the Bible for
the last twenty years. When I read my Bible now, many passages … which were
before dark, now seem plain. … I must say the Bible is a new book to me.
Mitchell is best known to history for
running a way station on the Underground Railroad, one of the many safe houses
for escaping slaves. Bartholomew’s Pioneer History of Elkhart County,
Indiana, Pioneer History of Elkhart County, Indiana, With Sketches and Stories,
says of Mitchell and others from Elkhart County: “these men were prominent
citizens of the county in their day and generation … . All of them were farmers
during part of their lives and it was at their farm homes that the stations
were operated.”
The strength of the Barbourite
movement was in the Mid-West, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts. Paton’s
preaching tour and that by Russell that followed it did not establish new
congregations. Their tours were meant to persuade previous interest to steady
the course. Paton’s tours had other motives too. Paton continued to see himself
as a clergyman. While Russell did not take collections, Paton accepted fees and
collections throughout his ministry. His income depended on his itinerate
ministry.
The
Editor’s Eastern Trip
Russell proposed a major
preaching tour eastward from Pittsburgh. He wanted it to effect unity among
scattered believers. In many places subscribers were “totally unacquainted with
each other” and thus lost “the sympathy and comfort which our Father designed
should come to them by ‘The assembling of themselves together as the manner of
some is.’” Russell hoped that “The proposed meetings … might conduce to
personal acquaintance.” Russell inserted a notice in the May 1880 Watch
Tower, telling his readers of a proposed speaking tour and inviting them to
express their interest.
In the June 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower, Russell
announced plans for a month-long speaking tour taking him to nine towns. “The
stay at each place will average about two days. I shall expect almost
continuous meetings while with you.”
First on his list was Chambersburg ,
Pennsylvania
It is probable, though not certain,
that most interest in Chambersburg area came from Evangelical Adventists. The
only point of unity would have been prophetic themes. Evangelical Adventists
maintained Millerite hell-fire doctrine. There was some Barbourite interest
there too, though we don’t know how extensive or enduring it was. When Barbour
called a “General Meeting” for late 1881, one delegate came from Chambersburg. While
no detailed report of Russell’s visit survives, there we enduring interest in
Chambersburg, and the group would receive a subsequent visit by Benjamin W.
Keith in 1882.
The Reading, Pennsylvania, meetings
were hosted by Joseph Brown Keim. (His name is misspelled as Kine in the
announcement.)We tell more about him in a later chapter. He was already an
active Watch Tower Reading
A meeting in Newark, New Jersey, was
hosted by Mrs. E. M. Deems. This may have been the wife of Rev. Edward M.
Deems, a Presbyterian. If so, she didn’t maintain an interest in Watch Tower
teachings. It is, we think, more likely that this is a misspelling for F. M.
Deans who occasionally wrote to Storrs
A Second Adventist congregation in
Newark was described as small by the May
2, 1860 issue of The Troy, New York, Daily Whig: “The Second
Adventists of Newark still keep up their weekly meetings, and are firmly
grounded in the belief that the end of all things is close at hand. The number
of believers habitually in attendance at the meetings is but small, but there
is no lack of zeal or fervor. “
By Russell’s visit, there were two
Adventist congregations in Newark, The First Society of Second Adventists,
apparently a sort of unity congregation hosting both Life and Advent Union and
Advent Christian Association believers, met at 12 Academy Street. They were “numerically
weak and of slow growth. Church
of the Messiah, an Evangelical Adventist congregation, met at 24 Washington
Street.
More importantly because their theology was much closer to Russell’s, a small
One Faith congregation met in a private home. We first find them mentioned in a
report about a One Faith conference held in Brooklyn ,
New York 16:16 , 17, and
meant to “show that the True Church is neither Greek, Protestant, nor Catholic.”
Interest would have come primarily from these groups.
We know little about these three
small congregations. In 1874, the One Faith congregation was led by Elder
Joseph Chapman. The Newark meeting was by far the most successful, and we will
return to it.
Amos Hunt was responsible for the
meetings at Lynn, Massachusetts. Almost nothing is known about him. He worked
in a factory at Lynn, not surprisingly since Lynn was a center of American shoe
manufacturing. He was born in New Brunswick, Canada, about 1836 to Roswell Hunt
and his wife the former Fanny Stiles, and was the only boy among their six
children. He and his wife Lizzie later moved to Anoka, Minnesota, where he
contracted “consumption.” He traveled to California for his health, dying in a
San Francisco hospital from the tuberculosis on June 22, 1889 . When he first met Russell and his degree of
interest are unknown.
Lynn was by the standards of the day a large city with a
population of about twenty-five thousand. There was long standing Adventist
interest in Lynn, though in 1891 there was only one small Second Adventist
church.
We couldn’t identify an Age-to-Come/One Faith group in Lynn.
The meeting at Lynn was probably typical of them all. What
sparse record remains gives us with some insight into Russell’s manner of
shepherding the congregations. The meetings were long, almost continuous, part
sermon and partly give and take. Questions were entertained, and their import
analyzed. Some of the discussion at Lynn focused on “the number of the beast.”
Russell was asked what it was, and he confessed that he was dissatisfied with
the available answers. Writing about a year later, he said:
I
spoke on the subject of this same chapter to the name-less little company of
“this way,” in Lynn, Mass., and concluded my remarks by telling them that I had
never seen a satisfactory explanation of the 666. And, though I thought I had
given a correct analysis of the symbols of the chapter, yet I could not claim
it to be wisdom, since I could not interpret the number. I suggested, however,
that if oursbe the correct understanding of the time in which we are living—the
“harvest” of the age--and if our general application of these symbols be
correct, the number should soon be understood. I urged examination on the
subject by all, for the Lord is sometimes pleased to give wisdom through the
weakest of his children. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast
ordained praise.”
About
three months later Russell received a letter from “one of the thinking brethren
of that place, saying that he thought he had the key.” Russell accepted the
explanation offered and it made its way into print. The suggestion was that the
number denoted giving support to religious organizations, and that the beast
was the Catholic Church, and its image was the Evangelical Alliance. This fit
with Russell’s belief that they were “called out,” separated, fine wheat-like
Christians without any organization but Christ’s:
Among
those who thus openly mark themselves in their forehead (by their creeds) are
Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and others. But others give a seeming
support (mark in their hand) to the general principal by organizing under various
sectarian names. After these are blended in the IMAGE, (and no one would be
admitted to membership in the Evangelical Alliance, unless he be a member of
some such sect), they all are collectively known as the “Protestant Churches,”
If we for instance were to organize, though we protest more than all others against the errors of Rome, and also against the errors of the Image and second BEAST, yet be would not be reckoned one of the “Protestant churches,” because we would not be recognized as orthodox--They would not count our organization a church.
Should
you inquire for our meetings and ask – Is that a protestant church which meets
here? The answer would come – Oh, no; they are not Evangelical. They have no creed to mark them, so that the
Alliance can decide whether they are an Evangelical Protestant Church or not.
At
least one individual was converted to Watch Tower theology by the meetings held
at Lynn. Her conversion was recounted in a dramatic fashion by Samuel I.
Hickey, a former clergyman, and for a period a Watch Tower evangelist. Writing
to Russell in1889, he recounted the story:
While
in Boston I was told of a sister at Winchester, about seven miles from Boston
and I went to see her. Some eleven years ago she was a lawless Roman Catholic
rum-seller there. Her conversion (a most remarkable one) occurred in the
prison, where she was confined for repeated violation of the liquor laws. When
she was released, she poured to waste all of her liquors and renounced the
Roman Catholic Religion. As she lived in the midst of an Irish Catholic
community, her persecutions were terrible. Her children were hooted, pelted
with stones, and abused in every conceivable manner. She was cursed and
slandered before her face and behind her back.
They even soaped the stairs of her dwelling to cause her to fall and maim or kill herself. The priest visited her, and when he found that she was firm in her determination to serve Christ rather than the devil, he cursed her and persuaded her husband to abandon her and declared that she should never have a Catholic dollar, and said they would drive her from her home. They broke the window panes in her house, and for two years she was obliged to keep them stuffed with rags, etc., being too poor to afford to replace the glass. She united with the Baptist church and was most zealous in her missionary efforts to bring others into that “communion.” She soon ceased to have her hunger satisfied with the husks of the less popish branch of Babylon and longed for more truth, for she saw and deplored the same spirit in Protestantism as in Romanism. About nine years ago, hungering and thirsting for the Word of Life, she heard that there were a series of meetings held at Lynn. You were the preacher and she was so well fed that she eagerly inquired, where she could continue to hear you. A friend told her that she could hear you through Z.W.T. every month. Ever since that God has fed her through your paper. When she was rejected by every body, that spoke peace to her heart. All was written in such a sweet spirit. The very pages seemed illumined by the spirit of God. She cannot write at all and can not read writing. [He means she couldn’t read cursive, only print.]
… When her boy lay dead in her house, a crowd collected opposite and cried that they wished it was the old devil that was dead, instead of the young one, or she along with it. Well, the next day after that she got the Tower. For all the sorrow she had had, it brought great joy, and she felt lifted up. She could not describe the gladness God sent her through it. The Lord anointed her eyes, and she came out of the Baptist church, and her persecutions at the hands of the Protestant religionists were harder to bear than those of the Roman Catholics – a refined cruelty. She attempted to reason with them out of the Scriptures, but was called an ignorant Irish woman and was rebuked for her insolence in presuming to teach them who had been studying the Scriptures all their lifetime. But she knew she had the truth, and counted it all joy – even her severest trials--for they brought her nearer to God, and taught her dependence upon Him. She was overjoyed at the thought that at last you should know of her and of the joy you had been the means of imparting to her.
At Clinton, Massachusetts, Mary T.
Miner hosted Russell. She is listed in the 1880 Census as head of household,
but we don’t know of she was a widow or separated from her husband.
The census tells us she was thirty-eight in 1880. She was born in November 1842
and still living in 1900. We do not have a death date. We can’t identify a
religious affiliation. A history of Clinton covering the years from its
mid-Seventeenth Century founding to 1865 says: “The Second Adventists also held
meetings in Clinton, in the Deacon John Burdett’s Hall. Their meetings were
characterized by great fervor, but the Adventists did not attain sufficient
numbers or financial strength to build any house of worship.”
So there may have been some interest from that quarter. Russell was in Clinton June 16, 1880 .
He was in Springfield ,
Massachusetts
Montrose was on his tour’s return
leg. His visit was to be hosted by Daniel D. Lathrop. We know scattered details
but little else about Lathrop. He was a civil engineer; we have a record of
word done for the Montrose water company in 1909. He was commissioned a notary
public in September 1879.
He was invited to a Shorthand Reporters’ convention in 1880, and it is probably
through this connection that he was introduced to Watch Tower theology.
Sunderlin was an expert stenographer too. In fiscal year 1876, Susquehanna
County paid him $273.76 for his services, a considerable sum for the period. He
wrote The American Stenographer: A Work Devoted Mainly to Extended
Principles of the Art, Rather Than to the Details of the Whole System which
was published in 1880. As were several of Russell’s earliest associates,
Lathrop was a member of the Prohibition Party, and served as
Secretary-Treasurer of a regional party committee.
He was secretary of the Susquehanna
Farmers’ Club in 1876. Lathrop was appointed guardian of two minor children,
relatives of some sort, in 1877.
He died in 1912, a short obituary summarizing his life:
The death of
Daniel D. Lathrop ends an interesting and useful career. Born Dec. 25th, 1833 , in Rush, the 8th
son of a family of eleven children, his father being Rev. William Lathrop, Jr.
a Baptist preacher. He secured his education at the county schools and later
taught several terms. Before the close of the Civil War he enlisted as a ship
carpenter, but saw no action. Three of his brothers met death on the
battlefield. His first wife was Emma Handrick and he married, second, Mrs.
Sallie M. Sherwood. He was one of the first official court stenographers in the
county, taking up the study of “phronography,” as it was then called, in 1851.
He took up the study of Civil Engineering and as he was a competent
mathematician his reputation for care and accuracy in surveying and mapping was
soon well established. In recent years he took a special course in mechanical
drawing to more fully equip himself for this class of work. In 1902 he started
the work, during leisure moments, of writing the New Testament in shorthand,
concluding the task in 1907. Thus closes the earthly record of a man who so
performed his day of work that when the Master called him from his labor, he
responded unabashed and confident.
In 1877, Lathrop wrote and published
an eight page poem entitled Light and Darkness.
We know of only one other interested
person in Montrose, and then only by their initials. A J.L.F. of Montrose
submitted a poem to Zion’s Watch Tower which saw publication in October
1879 issue:
WATCH TOWER.
Watchman, on the
lonely tower,
‘Mid the desert’s
arid sands,
Tell us of the
dawning hour,
Tell us of the moving
bands.
Seek they now the
shelt’ring palm,
Where the cooling
springs await?
Cheered, refreshed,
now press they on,
Toward the destined
City’s gates?
When the fierce
simoon is near;
Watchman! give the
warning cry;
Raise soul-stirring
notes of cheer,
As the journey’s end
draws nigh!
J. L. F. — Montrose,
Pa
Russell was unable to speak at
Montrose, and we do not know of Lathrop’s interest endured.
Alexander B. McCrea hosted Russell’s
visit to Berwick, Pennsylvania. He was a physician and member of the Columbia
County Medical Society. His hobby was ornithology, and we find some letters
from him to bird magazines.
In March 1872, he was one of the organizers of Knapp Lodge – Free and Accepted
Masons.
McCrea was born in Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania, about 1838. The key fragment of
miscellaneous biographical notices we’ve uncovered is that he graduated from
Long Island Medical College June 1,
1865 . This tells us he was a contemporary and classmate of C. W.
Buvinger, and we connect him to Russell and Storrs by this otherwise ephemeral
fact.
His death notice in JAMA noted Civil War service. He died April 12, 1919 , of influenza.
We do not know if McCrae’s interest
endured. As noted in volume one of this work, J. H. Thomas, who rode the backs
of Age-to-Come and Christadelphian believers preached in Berwick in 1882,
writing to The Restitution that “the
believers here are tinctured a little with Russellism, which is subversive of
the truth as it is in Jesus.”
We have no additional information.
Russell’s
last stop was at Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania. There Samuel M. Bond (1852-1936)
hosted his visit. Bond was at one time a telegraph operator.
We find him in 1897 advertising his services as a bill poster (broadside
poster) and advertising circular distributor. He was for many years a
department manager for L. L. Stearn & Son, a department store in
Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Before moving to Jersey Shore, he was a member of
the Odd Fellows’ Lodge in Renovo.
Advertisement – Billboard
Advertising,
Bond
seems to have been converted to Watch Tower theology by Russell while he was
still associated with Barbour. In 1894, Bond wrote to Russell, saying: “I have
been with you in this precious faith while you were with the Herald of the
Morning, and ever since the first issue of the Tower.” The earliest notice of
him we found is in the money received column of the January 1879 Herald of the
Morning. We presume he had been a reader for some time, but we really don’t
know. Most interest seems to have been in Williamsport, about fifteen miles
away.
Lack
of documentation outside the pages of Zion’s Watch Tower leaves us with
unanswered questions. We don’t know what the full effect of Russell’s visit was.
We see some details especially connected to his visit to Lynn and Berwick. We
don’t know how much interested persisted. We wish we did, but we don’t.
Russell’s
Report
His mission tour completed, Russell issued
a sanguine, somewhat saccharine report:
Many
will be glad to learn that my trip, now about ended, has been a very pleasant
one. The unpleasant features about it being the briefness of the visit at each
place and the farewells as we parted. Many of the dear friends whom we had
never met before, seemed, after the two or three days’ visit, to be life-long
acquaintances. We recognized in each other the spirit of adoption into the one
family, and our membership of the one body of Christ; and we felt ourselves
drawn to each other and cemented by “that which every joint supplieth” – love.
The
arrangements were carried out as noticed in our last, except at Montrose, Pa.,
where we were unable to make railway connections. The meetings averaged from
four to six hours per day at each place, and we trust, have been profitable to
the hearers; tending to strengthen, encourage, and establish them in the
present truth. With the exception of the bodily fatigue attendant upon so much traveling
and speaking, the month has been a round of pleasure to your Editor, who
returns home feeling much encouraged and refreshed, by the contact with so many
loving, sympathizing hearts, alive with the Spirit of Christ.
We
have seemed to realize more than ever, Jesus’ words: “Ye shall have in this
life a hundred fold – houses, lands, mothers, brothers and sisters.” We have a
hundred homes open to us if ever we go the same direction again. That the
invitations to come again were sincere, was attested by the firm grasp of the hand,
the moist eye, and “God bless you,” at parting.
On
the whole, the effects of the visit were so satisfactory that I rather feel
impressed that it may be Our Father’s will that I go among the dear flock more.
We shall wait for His leading, and go as the way seems to open, probably
however in other directions.
How
dear Brother Paul would have enjoyed such a trip as the one just ending. It
would have required more than a year to accomplish the same results in his day.
But evil also has new channels and rapidly increases, and if we would be
faithful we must take advantage of every circumstance.
Another
thought has been suggested to my mind by my becoming personally acquainted with
the saints, viz: If it did me good to know them and of their affairs, would it
not do all of the readers good, to know of the welfare of each other? I think
it would, and propose to furnish a corner of the “watch tower’s” space each month for your correspondence. Let
us all know every little while, say every three months, how the Lord prospers
you; whether you keep up your meetings with those of like precious faith, etc.
Make it brief and pithy; a few lines on a postal card will do. Thus our
interest in each other will be enlarged and all will be blessed. Who will start
it?
Carefully read, this is a mixed
report. He was happy to have met his readers and claimed a mutual recognition
as brethren in Christ. But he laced the report with qualifiers. The trip was
“so satisfactory” that he saw it as God’s will that he continue to travel and
preach. But it was only so “on the whole,” and we are at a loss to explain his
statement that he would go where God led, “but probably … in other directions.”
Some, perhaps most, appreciated his visit, and they parted with “moist eye.”
But not everyone was welcoming: “Evil also has
new channels and rapidly increases, and if we would be faithful we must take
advantage of every circumstance.” Russell put the best face he could on a trip
that addressed divisions and continuing controversy with Herald of the
Morning adherents.
That August (1880) Russell traveled
eastward:
I
purpose visiting brother and sister Paton at Almont, Mich., and the other
friends in that vicinity during August, and shall stop enroute at Elyria, on
the 9th and 10th, and at Cleveland on the 22d, and be in Bro. Paton's charge
from 14th to 16th inst. Elyria meetings are in charge of Sister Avis Hamlin. Those
at Cleveland are under Bro. Caleb Davies' control. May the Lord direct to His
own praise and to our mutual profit. My dear wife accompanies me on this short
trip.
It is interesting that Avis Hamlin
(see her biography in volume one) welcomed Russell after objecting to Paton’s
earlier visit. She and others in the Elyria area swung between previous belief
and Barbour’s new teachings. After the disappointment of 1878, she reported the
congregation still strong in faith. A letter from her dated June 23, 1878 , said:
Dear
Bro. I take the first opportunity of renewing my subscription, as I should feel
lost without the Herald. We are all strong in the faith. One of the brethren in
Elyria said, that since he had read your leading argument in the June number,
his faith was stronger than ever before; and it has filled all our hearts with
hope and strength.
Hamlin continued to vacillate until
1881 when Barbour’s additional prophetic speculations failed. Caleb Davies,
whose biography is in volume one of this work, was converted by Paton. Though
we find him mentioned in the Letters Received columns in the September and
October 1878 issues of the Herald, the date of his conversion is
uncertain. Davies seems never to have sided with Barbour. Davies, though he
ultimately abandoned association with Russell, Paton and Barbour, was less
swayed by personality than by the Bible as he understood it. Hamlin sees to
have been swayed by who ever had the strongest personality. Russell’s stay at
Almont would have allowed time for him to preach at Buchanan too, though he
does not directly mention this.
Others entered the field, some of whom have been forgotten by
historians of the Watch Tower movement. Among these was
J.
S. Lawver
John Shellenberger Lawver photo here
John Shellenberger Lawver was born in Pennsylvania about 1834
or 1835, immigrating later with his wife, Elizabeth Leckington, to New Oregon,
Iowa. He was a druggist in 1860 with considerable wealth.
By 1875 they had six living children ranging in age from one month to
seventeen. A son, Monroe, died of spinal meningitis in November 1873. From Iowa they immigrated to Illinois, thence to Kansas. In Illinois he was a
fruit grower with a net worth of $12,000.00, most of that in land. The Kansas
State Census of March 1875 lists him as a merchant, apparently a wholesale
grocer. The post Civil War financial crisis took its toll on the Lawvers as did
the great grasshopper plague. Their net worth had declined to about thirteen
hundred dollars divided between real estate ($300) and personal property
($1000). His apples were displayed
at the Centennial Exhibition in 1876 as part of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture exhibit.
While it is fun to speculate that he met Russell during the Centennial, there
is no proof that he did. By 1880 the Lawvers were in Burlington Junction,
Missouri. Census returns list him as a grocer.
The bare census records do not tell the full story. Lawver
was prominent in the small Mid-Western communities where he lived. He was, even
in bad times, wealthier than most. With several others, Lawver founded The
Howard County, Iowa, Sentinel in February 1858. The paper was short-lived,
a fire destroying it sometime in 1859. In
1863, he was Secretary of the small Masonic Lodge in New Oregon, Illinois, and
he served as an officer in the Union County, Illinois, Mechanical and
Agricultural Society in 1870.
The next year he was elected president. He became a fruit grower and wholesaler
while in Illinois, and a letter from him about a caterpillar infestation and
its reply found its way into The Prairie Farmer of May 16, 1864 . That same year he expanded his
production to include strawberries and tomatoes. A short notice in The
Country Gentleman said: “J. S. Lawver had six acres of Strawberry plants
sold about $1,000 worth of strawberries. He bought 60 old sash for $60, worked
hard all day and got up nights when snow was on the ground and replenished his
hot bed fires. He was his own gardener and this was his first fear at the
business. From two acres of land he sold $700 worth tomatoes.”
In February 1865 he and others incorporated the Illinois State Insurance
Company.
J. S. Lawver first comes to our notice in the in The
Restitution of February 3, 1875 ,
where he is noted as sending two dollars, apparently for a subscription. This
seems to mark his introduction to Age-to-Come theology. He shows up next in the
April 1876 issue of Bible Examiner. He requested information and books
from Storrs who noted them as sent.
Later that same year, Lawver wrote a letter to Hiram Vaughn
Reed, editor of The Restitution advocating views of Probation doctrine
that were identical to those held by Storrs. While the issue containing that
letter and Reed’s reply appear to have been lost, most of the story is told in
a subsequent issue. Reed rejected what he saw as second-probation. Full Chance
doctrine, a better name for Storrs’ and Russell’s teaching on the matter was a
controversial matter among Age-to-Come believers and Second Adventists. Most
Second Adventists were persuaded that the doctrine was false, but many
Age-to-Come adherents considered it truth or were uncertain enough to believe
it might be true.
Frank Burr as he looked about 1855. photo here
Reed sent his reply to Frank Burr, editor of the Advent
Christian Times who published it but with comments.Burr, a long-faced unpleasant man, was antagonistic to Age-to-Come belief. His
antagonism was one of the driving forces behind a growing animosity between the
two sects. Isaac Wellcome connected a period of financial decline and disunity
among Second Adventists, particularly Advent Christians, to Burr’s editorship,
though he was too tactful to name him as one of the causes: “There are causes
which have been for some time changing the condition of this Association,
preventing its prosperity and working disunion; the Association is greatly
embarrassed financially, and now unable to do much work. The primary causes of
these evils are not yet sufficiently investigated and developed to record in
history. We pray the Lord may correct the evils and give prosperity to the work
of publishing the glorious message of the soon coming Christ, to deliver his
groaning church.” The split between time-ists and the rest of the Advent Christian Association is
obvious and detailed in Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet.
Overlook by most historians of this era is the belligerence of Burr and others
toward Age-to-Come adherents, some of whom function from within the
Association.
photo here
His comments as appended to Reed’s article were unkind and,
as usual with him, not scripturally based:
He was preaching Storrs’ broad
salvation views at least from 1877, meeting, as Russell would later,
accusations of Universalism. When a clergyman interrupted one of his
evangelical meetings suggesting that his message sounded “very much like
Universalism,” he shot back:
Let
me ask you a candid, honest, brotherly question: Would you not prefer that
Universalism should e true at least, so far as yourself is concerned? He
replied, that he “should.” I then said, “Very well: What right have you, then,
to desire that which it should not be true for the great mass of our brother
men who have not had the opportunities you and I have had? Who gave you such
authority? … Oh for more of the love of God to be shed abroad in our hearts;
love that takes all selfishness out of us and gives us a kind, loving
sympathetic heart; one that does not merely care for self, but a love that
cannot make us happy unless our neighbors can be happy too.”
The “fair chance” doctrine
promulgated by Storrs, Lawver and others was not Universalism. It wasn’t even
second-probationism as usually understood, but it was a far broader view of
salvation than predestination and Hell-fire doctrine allowed. That it wasn’t
readily accepted as scriptural and loving depressed Lawver. He wasn’t alone. An
Elder John H. May wrote to Storrs that an Adventist preacher had banned him
from preaching in that church. The belief that many would be saved in the
resurrection was characterized as Universalism, “devil’s doctrine,” and
infidelity. Those who believed it were characterized as denominational
traitors. This experience would transfer to Watch Tower adherents when they
became the doctrine’s principal advocates.
Persistence in the faith was difficult. Lawver touched on
this in a letter to Storrs written in early 1878:
I
never found it so hard, as I find it now: that is, the nearer we approach the
“narrow way,” the harder it is to keep in it. If we get drowsy, some one is
ever ready to lay a stumbling block in the way, or to pull us out of the way.
It requires eternal vigilance. The loss of friends, and making new enemies, on
account of our “peculiar” way, constantly grinds our sensitive natures. But I
still feel that I have the evidence that to become nothing in standing for the
glorious character, and vindicating the Government of God, is worth more than
all the friends of earth and its wealth.
By 1879 he was recognized by The Restitution as a
preaching Elder. Lawver, who was a wholesale green grocer, partnered with John
C. Foore, a school teacher and like Lawver a resident of Kansas. Both of them
were partisans of Storrs, handing out copies of Bible Examiner rather
than other Age-to-Come literature. A lengthy letter from him to Storrs reveals
that he preached the same message as Storrs.
Late in 1879, Lawver engaged with “a public lecturer” in a
debate. The topic was the nature and value of Christianity, and the first
proposition was, “resolved, that Christianity had done more harm than good.”
Lawver appears to have been an adept debater:
After
the affirmative had opened with a triad against the so-called Christianity, I
called for a definition of Christianity. My opponent agreed with me that
Christianity proper was the doctrine put forth by the Christ, whether human or
divine. … What were this Christ’s doctrines? I opened the Divine record and
showed what Christ and his apostles taught. Then I asked the speaker and the
audience, whether those doctrines practiced could do harm? All agreed that
those doctrines would make the world better. Then, said I, the debate is
closed. If those doctrines promulgated by Christ and his apostles could do no
harm, then they never did do any harm. Then the opposition tried to force the
teaching and acts of the so-called churches upon me. No sir, said I, I am not
here defending churchianity, but Christianity.
Though it is tempting, one should not read too much into
their message as we know it. In December 1880, Foore was in Golden City
[state], preaching on subjects that included “Plan of the Ages” and “Three
Worlds or the Restitution of All Things.” He invited Lawver to come assist him.
While echoing Watch Tower doctrine, these were common Age-to-Come themes, and
we cannot take his preaching on them as evidence of sympathy. But other
evidence is forthcoming. In early 1881 G. M. Myers, who himself had
considerable interest in Watch Tower teachings, wrote a long article to support
the view that the Communion Meal took place on Nisan 13th instead of
the 14th. Myers wrote to refute an article published in the April
1881 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. Entitled “READ
THIS,” Myers’ article appeared in the May
11, 1881 , issue of The Restitution. He lumped Russell and
Foore together as doctrinal partners. Foore and Russell picked differing days
for the Memorial Observance. Without discussing details best left for someone
who argues theology, we are left with Myers’ someone snide question: “Brother
Foore, why this discrepancy between you and Brother Russell? Have you different
calendars?” This still leaves us uncertain as to the degree of sympathy between
Russell and Foore. Probably they agreed most closely over Restitution doctrine,
both of them accepting the ideas found in Storrs’ [title]. He gently poked S.
A. Chaplin, The Restitution’s editor, over his differences with the
paper writing that he still got the paper “and like it very much; but sould
like it much better if it could be opened for the advanced views – such as the
blessing of all nations and allk indreds in the age to come.” In short, he
wanted The Restitution to open its pages to Storrs’ view of a larger
salvation in the age to come.
Lawver, as did many of the evangelists loosely connected to The
Watch Tower, loved debates, believing that they countered poor theology and
infidelity. Sometime in late September or early October 1879, he debated “a public
lecturer upon the proposition, ‘Resolved, that Christianity had done more harm
than good.’”
J. S. Lawver’s preaching tour was announced in Zion’s
Watch Tower, and we can suppose sympathy to the Watch Tower message.
Calling him “Brother Lawver,” Russell noted his evangelical tour planned for
mid-1882: “Bro. Lawver of Missouri starts about July first, for a trip through
Kansas and Texas. Letters, requests for preaching, may be addressed to this
office.” Russell included him with
other Watch Tower evangelists such as Keith and Sunderlin. Interestingly, his
trip is reported in The Restitution as well.
Some overlap, sometimes a considerable overlap, in teaching and evangelism
between Watch Tower and Restitution evangelists continued into
the 1890s.
As did many of the earliest Watch Tower adherents, Lawver
read and circulated material published by others. In December 1880 we find him
recommending a pamphlet for sale through The Restitution entitled Christ’s
Kingdom: Where is it? What is it? It was written by Joseph Laciar
(1843-1904), a pharmacist of Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania, and was the text of a
speech given at Berwick, Pennsylvania. As of this writing, we have not been
able to secure a copy. He also encouraged everyone to get subscriptions to The
Restitution.
Lawver drops out of sight by early 1883. A George Kedwell of
Arkansas wrote to The Restitution pleading for help and asking “where is
Brother Lawver?” An answer was not forthcoming. He appears to have died.
