How Old was Rose Ball?

Note: More recent research has confirmed Rose's age on entering the Russell household and shows this article's main premise to be incorrect. Please see the article Rose and Charles Ball published on June 4, 2020. However, there are some things of value in the article below so it has not been deleted.

by Jerome

(reprinted)

Rose Ball and Ernest Henninges pictured in the front row of a group photograph at a Bible Students convention in Chicago in August 1893. Rose was 24 and Ernest 22 at the time. They would marry a few years later.

When Maria Russell sued Charles Taze Russell (hereafter referred to as CTR) for a divorce from bed and board, and accused him of improprieties with other females in the household, it attracted front page headlines in Pittsburgh. It was just the sort of story about a religious figure that the papers loved. Maria’s accusations, although judged inadmissible by the judge, were still given maximum publicity in the popular press.

There were actually two accusations. One featured Rose Ball, a member of CTR’s household who had been viewed as an unofficial adopted daughter; and the other featured a servant girl, Emily Matthews. Rose had subsequently married, and at the time of the court case in 1906 was living with her husband Ernest Henninges on the other side of the world in Australia. Rose had been out of the country for several years at this time, and since Maria’s accusations were not publicised in advance, there was no way she could be called on to give evidence for either side. However, the other accusation, one far less known, involving a servant girl named Emily Matthews, was dealt with by the court. Emily still lived in Pittsburgh, and when called as a witness under her married name Emily Sheesly, testified clearly that no impropriety had ever occurred with CTR. Maria’s counsel did not even bother to cross-examine her.

One feature of the Rose Ball accusation that has continued to raise questions is her age. Maria presented her as a fully grown woman; CTR presented her as a much younger person towards whom he acted in a “fatherly” manner. There are several schools of thought on this divergence. One is that CTR stressed his fatherly concern for a young person in his household, because that was innocent; although in today’s popular climate would likely backfire. Another school of thought blames the discrepancy on Maria; that Rose’s age was inflated so that her accusations would carry more weight in the popular climate that existed then. Another interesting theory is that maybe Rose herself falsified her age – one way or the other – to get into the Russell household. Or – looking at the above photograph taken of Rose when she was 24 – maybe in her late teens she really did just look young and dress young.

This article presents another suggestion, where a simple misunderstanding over dates could possibly resolve the inconsistency. I admit this relies on conjecture, but I would ask that readers at least consider it.

Rose was born on 19 March 1869 and died in Australia on 22 November 1950 aged 81. Since 1909 she and her husband, Ernest Henninges, led a movement that broke away from ZWT over the issue of the New Covenant. They published a journal called The New Covenant Advocate, which ran from 1909-1953. Ernest was chief editor until his death in 1939. Rose then served as editor until 1944 when she handed over the reins due to advancing years. As the original adherents died out, so the paper slowly declined until it ceased publication in 1953. However, it ran for sufficient years to record Rose’s obituary in the issue for January 1, 1951. This is where her birth date comes from, allowing researchers to link up with the correct Rose Ball from genealogical records. Rose was buried with her late husband in Burwood cemetery, Victoria, but her name was never added to his memorial inscription.

So how old was Rose when she joined the Russell household? Most histories that comment on the issue state that she joined his household in 1888. This statement tallies with ZWT for February 15, 1900, which states that she had been a member of the Watch Tower family for 12 years. This was written at the time she and husband Ernest set sail abroad. I am speculating that, depending on how you define matters, this date may be misleading.

Page references below are from the original transcript of the April 1906 Russell vs Russell hearing. (For any readers who have the Paper Book of Appellant, the pagination is obviously different but the text is the same.)

Maria claimed that Rose was 19 or 20 when she came to live with them (page 67). Whereas CTR (page 135) states “she looked to be about 13 - I don’t know how old she was” and later says “she was a very young looking woman”. Some of the worst critics of CTR have chosen to accept Maria’s accusation, but then to ignore her description of Rose in favour of CTR’s - simply so they can put the worst possible spin on it and accuse him of child molestation.

However, it is interesting to see how Maria’s claim is challenged by her own testimony. On page 11 of the transcript there is a very strange exchange, which no-one ever seems to have taken issue with:

Q  How long had (Rose) been with you before this trouble arose?

A  She came to us in about 1884.

Q That would be just about the time you moved on to Clifton Avenue?

A  No, we moved on to Clifton Avenue in 1883. It was about 1889 when she came, just shortly after we moved to Clifton Avenue.

Q  Did she live with you?

A  Yes Sir.

The above exchange doesn’t make any sense; did the stenographer have an off-day? Maria moved to Clifton Avenue in 1883, Rose joined them about 1884, or rather – hasty correction - she joined them in 1889 just after they moved to Clifton Avenue…

Did Maria suddenly change her testimony mid-sentence? 1889 of course would make Rose 19 or 20, which would fit Maria’s later allegation. But if Maria changed her testimony, or just got muddled in her responses, it is a shame no-one appeared to notice it on the day to query it!

The matter is further confused by Maria stating (still on page 11) that “Rose lived with us for about twelve years.” Since Maria ceased to be part of “us” in 1897, that doesn’t fit the 1888 claim. Neither is any acknowledgement made of Rose’s marriage to Ernest Henninges. According to Rose’s death certificate she was married at the age of 25, which would be the mid 1890s. (However, one must be cautious about dates on death certificates, since the one person who could verify the information is no longer there to do so. Some internet sources give the year 1897, but I have yet to see a marriage certificate.) However, whatever year it was in the 1890s, the marriage would certainly have changed both Rose’s name and status in the household.

The possible truth of the matter is found in Maria’s earlier testimony on page 4. When recounting her various homes, she states that she moved into Clifton Avenue and lived there for ten years before moving to the Bible House in 1894.

So according to Maria’s testimony, they moved to Clifton Avenue in 1884 (or with her later statement on page 67 perhaps earlier in 1883), and shortly thereafter Rose joined them. If that was the case, Rose joined them in 1883-84. The date 1884 for her joining the household is also given in a comprehensive thesis in Spanish on Watch Tower hymnology, where Rose wrote the lyrics for several hymns used by Bible Students.

With an 1869 birth date that would make her aged about 14-15.  CTR’s claim - I don’t know how old she was – she was young looking – maybe about 13? – and with the styles of clothing worn by young women of that age group – that could be more feasible than Maria’s portrayal of a fully grown-up 19-20 year old.

But twenty years or more on, with all the more important things to remember and all that water under the bridge, it is quite possible for memory to play tricks on exact years - so could the 1888 date in the July 15, 1906 ZWT be technically incorrect? And could CTR have had more in mind her working at the new headquarters – Bible House – rather than just living at his home – when talking of her joining the “Watch Tower” family, rather than his personal family, in ZWT February 15, 1900? That might explain the apparent discrepancy.

When living in Bible House, Rose played an active part in the affairs of the WT Society. Both she, and her future husband, Ernest Henninges, were directors of the Society at one point. It is reported that Rose became a Watch Tower Society director in April 1892 and then Vice-President in January 1893 for a year, remaining as a director thereafter until going abroad in 1900. (In reality these were honorary positions needed to fulfil legal requirements). After she and Ernest married, they eventually left America to start branches of the Society in England and Germany before ending up in Australia. Rose would have known all about the court hearing and Maria’s accusations because CTR published his side of matters in ZWT in 1906, and she and Ernest still actively supported CTR’s ministry until the rift over the New Covenant issue. (See for example Henninges’ glowing Australian reports to his “dear brother” in the annual reports in ZWT for both 1906 and 1907.)

Even when, in late 1908, they chose to oppose CTR’s views on certain theological issues, and then from 1909 propounded their views in a monthly journal, mentioning CTR by name, they never used his personal conduct in their arguments. Rose could have been the star witness had there been any truth in Maria’s accusations. And what is overlooked – Emily, the other girl named, turned up in court voluntarily and supported CTR’s account.

This “explanation” of a discrepancy in the hearing is – I freely admit – just speculation on my part.

Perhaps I might be forgiven for throwing impartiality into the long grass to conclude this article.

I would like to describe another religious figure – one who is actually far better known today that CTR. See if you can guess who this is.

He was born in Britain, but after completing his education travelled to America. While there, he was arrested for slander and given bail, but immediately skipped the area and ultimately the country to escape the consequences. He also left behind a young lady, having decided after casting lots (pieces of paper taken out of a hat!) that he wouldn't stay around and marry her. Back in England after another failed relationship, he eventually married a rich widow. But one day she rummaged in his desk and found loads of affectionate letters to other women, and stormed out of the house. He put a note in his diary that basically said "Good riddance - I won't ask you back!" While separated from this wife, he then took a woman of very dubious history on as his "housekeeper". Unfortunately for him and his "housekeeper" at a special meal with other ministers and dignitaries, he had the indignity of his estranged wife bursting in and ranting about the "whore" he was currently with - in front of everyone. Their ill-feeling towards each other was so public, that when his estranged wife took sick no-body bothered to tell him until after she was dead and buried.

This makes CTR's and Maria’s misfortunes in matrimony appear quite paltry in comparison.

Who am I describing above? John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church.

The point to be stressed is that - even if Wesley was 100% at fault in the above account (and in fairness to him I have no way of knowing either way) would one be right to judge the Methodist church on that slice of history? Would Wesley's personal life ever be a good argument for or against the veracity of Methodism? If anyone went down that road, I am sure that any rational person would view them as prejudiced and unreasonable. And the fact that the above historical details are not widely circulated shows that media of today shares that view.

So whatever happened in the sad disintegration of the Russells’ marriage and the bombshell Maria dropped without warning into an open hearing – any standard of judgment should be based on the beliefs and teachings of the principals, and in the context of the times.

But over the issue of Rose’s age, the above is a possible explanation that may help harmonise the varying accounts.

Book Burning

Regular readers of this blog will know that Bruce contacted the Watchtower Society for certain information and documentation. The Office of Public Information replied to one request and this is now shared below.

The Proclaimers book on page 642 describes how the books of C T Russell were publicly burned in parts of the United States. Quoting from part of one paragraph:

“Many of the clergy used their pulpits to denounce Russell’s writings. They commanded their flocks not to accept literature distributed by the Bible Students. A number of them sought to induce public officials to put a stop to this work. In some places in the United States – among them, Tampa, Florida; Rock Island, Illinois; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and Scranton, Pennsylvania – they supervised public burning of books written by Russell.”

Bruce asked for supporting evidence for this book burning, and scans of four items were sent.

The first, and familiar to many readers already, was this page from J F Rutherford’s Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens, which reproduced the charred remains of one copy of the Divine Plan of the Ages.

The caption ‘Rescued from the Flames of the Destroyer’ lists the places where public burnings had taken place up to 1915. This is the list reproduced in the Proclaimers book.

Such events made the newspapers. The Harrisburgh Telegraph (PA) for January 23, 1915, reported on a proposed public burning of books in front of the United Brethren Church.  With an ecumenical touch some books of Christian Science were to be added to the same bonfire. However, the paper did announce that “the books most bitterly condemned by Evangelist Hillis were Russell’s ‘Millinial (sic) Dawn’ and the publications of the ‘Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.’”

The next year, the Hopkinsville Kentuckian for August 19, 1916, reported on a similar event.

The longest newspaper account was from 1919. The Alexandria Gazette (Virginia) for December 5, 1919, gave quite a favourable review of Russell’s work, noting that they “abound in quotations from holy writ.” It suggested that most of the protestors had probably not actually read them. The book burning was part of a revivalist drive at a Primitive Methodist Church. The books were dumped on a street corner, doused in kerosene, and the paper painted an entertaining picture of two hundred “religionists” (their words) dancing around the flames while singing hymns.

The newspaper story ended with the paragraph:

“Pastor Russell’s books have given an impetus to Bible study. This fact alone should save them from the bonfire.”

Please Read This

By B. W. Schulz

            I’ve noted before that this is a history blog. That’s all this is. We do not engage in theological debate; we do not allow those who post here to throw temper tantrums or insult other posters.

            This essay is something of an exception. This is addressed to those Jehovah’s Witnesses who visit this blog, though I hope it benefits everyone. I am a long-serving Witness, probably older than most who visit this blog. When you visit our blog you are very much like a guest in my house. Guests have obligations to their host. Psalms 15:1 suggests this: “O Jehovah, who will be a guest in your tent? Who will reside in your holy mountain? He who is walking faultlessly and practicing righteousness and speaking the truth in his heart.” To my eye, this summarizes respect for one’s host. In the verse the host is Jehovah. Here Dr. de Vienne, my niece, and I are the hosts. On that basis, you owe respect.

            Among those issues that arise for guests is the obligation to contribute to conversation. Many of our visitors do not come from a culture that recognizes that obligation. But Witnesses may remember an article appearing in an older Awake! that says: “Of course, as an invited guest ... you have more responsibility to contribute to meaningful conversation. Try to reward your host by conversation that is enlightening and upbuilding, at the same time giving others the opportunity to express themselves. This will help to make your visit a joy and a mutual success.” Maybe you forgot this, but this is an extension of the Biblical obligation to show respect to our hosts.

            Early in this blog’s life I received emails from Witnesses, some of them elders, asking me to restrain Rachael’s opinions. Recently there has been a repeat of this folly. Rachael is not a Witness; she never was. To put it bluntly, she’s a very intelligent young [well young compared to my ancient self] woman. She is exceptionally well educated, a MENSA member based on an IQ that puts her in the top one quarter of one percent. She is entitled to her opinions. That some wish to include me in controversies with Rachael tells me that they have something less than a Biblical opinion of women.

            Some Witness men focus only on Ephesians 5:22 where Paul says wives should be in subjection to their husbands. They seem to think that in God’s eyes women are of some low class, that they are somehow less than males. But think about that. Peter says that women are equal to men in salvation. The Psalms describe the collective of faithful women as an army. In your experience, do not women predominate among the surviving members of the Body of Christ? When I was very young there were twenty-two partakers in our small congregation. Almost all of them were women. Today spread among eight local congregations there are four partakers. I am the only man in that group. That means that some of the women you may disrespect are going to rule over you. That should give you pause.

            Rachael reminds me of Jael. Certainly our Witness readers know who Jael was. She was not part of Israel but was a Kenite. Kenites were related to Israel in a very distant fashion. Jael entered Israel’s history in the days of Barak and Deborah. In that narrative the one conveying Jehovah’s word was Deborah, a woman, and when Barak failed in some respect Deborah said: “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for Jehovah will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” That woman was Jael, a non Israelite. Jael’s bravery was exceptional as was her intelligence. She was one smart cookie, an appropriate choice for God’s agent. Rachael may stand outside of what you consider ‘the truth.’ But she is dedicated to ‘truth’ when it comes to our project. I mean she is determined to write accurate history, even if it makes some of our readers uncomfortable.

            Subjection as used in the Bible, especially the New World Translation, is derived from a word for military rank. It says nothing about the worth of women. It’s about order. And note that the verses say: “A husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it.” This does not extend to your relationship to women not your wife. When considering the relationship of one congregation member to another, Paul says: “Be submitting yourselves to one another in reverence of Christ.” [Berean Literal Bible] So your relationship to ‘sisters’ is determined by that. But remember Rachael isn’t your ‘sister’ in the sense you understand this term; she is a professional historian, an award wining educator. You have no business involving the men in her life – Jerome or me or anyone else – in some imagined controversy. That some have done so plainly says they have forgotten the Bible’s message.

            As I recently said to another, Rachael is an excellent self-editor. When she posts a work in progress she always warns you that it will change. As research progresses our work changes. This is as true of Rachael’s Introductory Essay as anything else. You may not like what we write, but before it makes it to print – to final form – it will change and be as honest and accurate as we can make it.

            Some Witnesses fear what others may write. They do not like even mild criticism. They feel Jehovah and their fellows need protection. What kind of God do you worship if you entertain this view? My God is eternal and all powerful and perfectly capable of defending himself and those he sees as his own. Attacking Rachael’s integrity because you think she’s questioned your faith is weakness. If you have contrary evidence, present it, do so in  a blog comment.

            Some blog readers fear controversy hoping it does not appear on the blog. History writing has always caused controversy. It is the quality of the argument that matters. In recent cases Rachael’s integrity was attacked based on what another wrote. Do you understand how incredibly misdirected this is? Those who indulged in this folly simply did not want dirty laundry aired.

            I’ve been a Witness longer than most of you have been alive. In that time I’ve seen us do some very silly things. It happens on all levels. [My mind drifts off to the annual meeting in 1954 as an example] We are not above criticism and we should accept it when merited. Also, your personal experience, especially limited experience, with another brother or sister does not mean you have a full, accurate response to something Rachael may write about that person.

            In the current version of her essay, sent to me this morning, many of the things some object to are gone, not because of your abuse but because they no longer fit the essay. As I said, she’s a very good self-editor.

            The net result of this rambling statement is that I will not act as Rachael’s parent or husband. I am neither. I will not regulate her thought or work. Appealing to me or anyone else to do so is a sin within the Biblical meaning of the word.

Do not do it ...

I am an equal partner in this project, and I am principal blog editor. If you write to Jerome or Bruce hoping they will 'control' what I say, what my opinions are or the trend of my research, you will not like the result.

I am a 41 year old woman, not a child. I'm better educated that many of you with a number of certifications, two bachelors and two masters degrees and a PhD. I'm not a child for you to control and I hate tattle tales.

If you do not like something I've written, that's okay. Attempting to control my writing by appealing to Bruce will disgust us both. And Jerome, while he writes valuable blog posts, has no voice in our books content. What exactly did you think he could do?

If you see yourself in this comment, don't post comments here. I will delete them. Do not email me. Your email is in my permanently blocked folder. Do not contact me through another. Anyone foolish enough to stand in your place will also not like the result.

There is no way for me to stop your visits to this blog, but I can end your participation and will do so.

This blog is covered by international copyright.

Recently, a Russian language blog took content, text and photos, from this blog. This is theft. Without exception, the Russians who have visited this site and commented or emailed have been trolls. None of them are welcome here. Do not steal from this blog. If you wish to use something you find here, ask.

Zion's Day Star

 

The Rayville, Louisiana, Richland Beacon, November 26, 1881

More on George Darby Clowes

This is stellar research by "Jerome," and I think it merits some comments. This blog exists, in part, to gather feedback from interested readers. In my view minimal ethics require thanks when we 'feed' off the work of others. I know this is - in this day - an uncommon thought. But, if you had a 'favorite teacher' who opened your mind to life long learning, you have probably thanked them in person and quietly in your mind. ... Someone who teaches you, who wakes you up, who informs you via the Internet deserves the same thanks.

Many of our readers are attracted to "Jerome's" articles because they are short and focus on a single detail. Because they are seldom long, in-depth studies does not mean they do not deserve recognition.

More on George Darby Clowes
by Jerome

Photo reproduced by kind permission of George Darby Clowes' great-great-grandson.

George Darby Clowes is the name given to at least three generations of a family, which can be confusing when trying to trace who was who.

Our George (the pastor of the Allegheny congregation in the early 1870s) was born in Britain on April 26, 1818. He was baptised into the established church (Birmingham, St Martin) on December 29, 1818.  At the age of 19 he was married at the same church to Sarah Fearney on December 6, 1837.

George and Sarah were to have nine known children over the next 24 years. The first two were born in Britain, Emma (b.1841) and James (1843-1916). After James' birth the family moved to the United States, specifically Pennsylvania, because the remaining seven children were born there. These were Hepzebah (1845-1864), Israel W (1848-1915), Fredrick (b.1851), George Darby Jr (1854-1932), Stephen (1858-1920), Sarah (b.1861) and Sumpter (b.c.1865).

George did not apply for naturalization until 1861, but the document with his signature has survived.

George’s wife Sarah died in 1881. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 14 March 1881 page 4.

George had a number of occupations. It may be that some ran concurrently. For example, he was still apparently involved with the Allegheny Arsenal in 1875. From the US Register of Civil, Military and Naval Service, 1875 volume 1. Dated September 30, 1875 it has George working as a Foreman at the Allegheny Arsenal for three dollars a day.

When George died there was a small notice in the paper. From the Pittsburgh Dispatch 26 January 1889, page 7,

We started by mentioning three generations of the family having the name George Darby Clowes. In addition to our George we have his sixth child, George Darby Clowes (1854-1932). Then George’s fourth child, Israel W Clowes named a son George. So we also have George Darby Clowes (1877-1946).

Among today's visitors

Visit One:

[United States] Tuxedo Park, New York, United States

IP Address:

    Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Of New York (208.74.140.116) Label Visitor

Visit Page:      Watch Tower History: July 2013

Visit Two:           

Page Views:     10

Visit Length:     17 mins 32 secs

Total Visits:     2

Location:

    [United States] Tuxedo Park, New York, United States

IP Address:

    Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Of New York (208.74.140.116)

Search Referral:

     https://www.bing.com — Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott 2011

Entry Page:

     Watch Tower History: The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society

Exit Page:

     Watch Tower History: The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society

So ...

I've significantly enlarged and changed my introductory essay. Last time I posted it no-one left a blog comment. Comments are important; they help us see how others react to our work. This helps us improve it.

The last post generated some off blog comments. They ranged from something like 'how interesting' to a four page critique that questioned some statements. I liked the critique best. Though I do not agree with the criticisms it helped me see what issues arose, and gave me a clearer path forward.

Yet, from those who read this blog and who should know as much or more concerning the issues I raised, there were no comments.

Do I post the current version? Or must I assume there will be no comments? So posting it isn't worth the time it takes?

There is absolutely no interest in seeing the revised version. Accordingly, I will not post it.

George Darby Clowes

Posted to supplement the comment trail in earlier post. This is an extract of Separate Identity volume 1:

He [Jonas Wendell] was in Ohio from October 19 to October 26. He was in Pittsburgh on November 5, 1871. He summarized his visit with the Pittsburgh believers thus:

Sunday, Nov. 5th, met with the church in Pittsburgh, Penn., and remained with them about four weeks. We had meetings three times during the week, and three times on Sunday. After I had been there two weeks, Bro. G.W. Stetson of Ohio came to my help, and is to remain till the 17th inst., at which time (if the Lord will) I am to return, and remain with them for a season. The meetings thus far have resulted in great good. The church in Pittsburgh have been like sheep without a shepherd. On the last Sunday I was with them, the church unanimously invited Bro. Clowes to be their under shepherd, to which he consented. Bro. Clowes was until recently a minister of the M.E. church of Pittsburgh. Last summer (as was noticed at the time in the Crisis) he was tried for what they called heresy, and expelled from their conference. God bless Bro. Clowes. He is a true man, one who loves the truth of God more than the praise of men.^[1]

As sparse as this report is, it conveys some key points. The body was disorganized; and if regular meetings were held, there was doctrinal difference and some acrimony. We get that from his “sheep without a shepherd” remark. Being an experienced pastor and new to the congregation, G. D. Clowes was elected pastor. It was a logical choice.

George Darby Clowes and the Allegheny Church

George D. Clowes, Sr. was born April 26, 1818 in Warwickshire, England. He entered the Methodist ministry sometime before the Civil War. In the 1866-1867 Directory of Pittsburgh and Allegheny Cities he is listed at the Superintendent of the U. S. Arsenal. An earlier edition names him the Assistant Laboratory Superintendent at the Arsenal. [2] He seems to have left that position in 1870 or 1871. It was not uncommon for ministers of small churches to preach part-time or to hold secular employment. This seems to be the case with Clowes. For a short time he is listed as a laborer; the 1875-1876 Directory lists him as “Clowes, Rev. George D.” It does not list a denominational affiliation and he is not found in the list of churches. J. F. Diffenbacher’s Directory of Pittsburgh and Allegheny Cities. 1882-1883, has him as a “Steel Inspector” and living at 273 Lacock, Allegheny. Diefenbacher’s Directory for 1884-1885 has him living in a rooming house at 66 Federal Street and lists his occupation as “agent,” though we’re not told for whom he acted as an agent. The same directory for the next year lists him as a janitor. He was still living on Federal Street at his death and was thus a near neighbor to the Russells.^[3]

Clowes became pastor of the small Allegheny congregation in November or December 1871. Clowes saw his expulsion from the Methodists for heresy as gift from God. In a letter to George Storrs he wrote: “I deeply regret the spirit manifested by some of our brethren who do not see these precious truths. A few years ago I was cast adrift by those among whom I had labored for a quarter of a century … and often since I have thanked my heavenly Father for Liberty. Precious liberty from the shackles of creeds.”^[4] Clarence Kearney reports it this way: “From Pittsburgh it was reported that ‘The Fourth Street Methodist Episcopal Church was in a ‘perfect ferment’ over Life in Christ.  Expulsion of a member, Mr. Clowes, was sought but this ‘only gave him a splendid opportunity to circulate tracts.’”[5]

Clowes would sympathize with the Watch Tower ministry, preaching similar doctrines and giving the closing invocation at Watch Tower Memorial Convention in 1886. This is not a guarantee that he closely followed Zion’s Watch Tower theology. A Canadian clergyman and an Age-to-Come evangelist both spoke at the meeting, and neither held exactly to Watch Tower doctrine. A positive indication that he accepted Russell’s belief system as it was at the end of 1876 is his withdrawal as pastor of the Church of God congregation. The Russells remained on friendly terms with him until his death, January 25, 1889.^[6]

---

[1]           J. Wendell: From Bro. J. Wendell: The World’s Crisis and Second Advent Messenger, December 27, 1871.

[2]           See page 85 in the 1866-67 edition and page 58 in the 1863-64 edition.

[3]           His address is noted in a brief obituary appearing in the January 26, 1889, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dispatch.

[4]           From Eld. G. D. Clowes, Bible Examiner, November 1875, page 61.

[5]           C. J. Kearney: The Advent Christian Story, Advent Christian General Conference, 1968, page 42. We can’t identify a Fourth Street Methodist Church. We think Kearney meant the Liberty Street Methodist Church which was located on Liberty at the corner of Fourth.

[6]           View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower, May 1886, page 1, notes that Clowes was an active evangelist in at least some sympathy with Russell. One cannot reach a firm conclusion as to how much of Watch Tower doctrine he accepted. Myers and Brookman, both of whom were present at the same meeting, were independent but sympathetic. Russell worked with others who did not hold to his exact doctrine, sometimes working with those who differed considerably in doctrine. Remainder of this footnote deleted as inaccurate. Explanation will be in vol. 2.

His death was noted in the March 1889, Watch Tower, and Russell praised him: “On January 25th our dear Brother Clowes, with whom some of our readers were acquainted, having heard him preach the word of truth at various points near Pittsburgh, passed away full of triumphant faith and glorious hope. ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea, saith the spirit, they shall rest from their labors, but their works follow with them.’”

Among today's visitors

Cesario Lange, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Associação Torre De Vigia De Bíblias E Tratados (138.59.56.252) Label Visitor

Search Referral:

https://www.google.com.br/ (Keywords Unavailable) 

Visit Page:

 Watch Tower History: More from Cedar Point 1922

Sometimes ...

Sometimes things just drop into our lap. These haven't arrived yet, but will soon. I paid more than my budget allows but I rarely see these as originals ...

Emma Martin

by Jerome

(updated with extra information about Emma's husband who it appears was also a Bible Student)

When the book The Finished Mystery was released in 1917 while Canada and the United States were at war it unleashed a wave of persecution against the Bible Students loyal to the IBSA. Statements about patriotism were viewed as pro-German propaganda and Bible Students fell afoul of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. The book had been prepared before the act came into force, and the main offending pages were cut out of copies being circulated thereafter, but this didn’t stop the prosecution and conviction of the Brooklyn eight – J F Rutherford and seven others. This article addresses the fact that many others were also arrested in the hysteria of the times. One such person was Mrs J Emma Martin.

We know a little bit about Emma’s history. She was married to a doctor, and had at least one child who died in 1910.  The child’s death certificate and census returns from 1900 and 1905 provide most of what we know. She was born as Emma Hart in 1870 in Clinton, Iowa. Her husband, Jeffrey Martin, MD, was born in England in 1851/1852 but came to America in 1879. The 1900 census lists him as a physician and surgeon. They were married in 1897. Their son, Paul, was born in Kansas and died in 1910 in Eire County, aged 6, due to complications from measles.

At some point it appears that both Jeffrey and Emma became Bible Students. Jeffrey died on July 24, 1916, and is buried in the Pioneer Memorial Cemetery, San Bernardino. The Find a Grave site shows his gravestone and the tell-tale letters I.B.S.A. are engraved on it after his name. Emma became a colporteur and in 1918 was energetically circulating The Finished Mystery. One report says she had followed instructions in cutting out the offending pages, but had then reinserted them back into the copies she sold. BOI agents (Bureau of Investigation – later the FBI) infiltrated a Bible Study meeting pretending to show interest in the Bible Students’ message, and their investigations showed Emma had sold 147 copies in the area. The very precise charge suggested they had spent some considerable time and energy interviewing local people in their efforts to convict her.

Three others from the local Bible Students were also arrested in March 1918 and charged with violating provisions of the Espionage Act. (This was a couple of months before warrants went out for the arrest of J F Rutherford and others of the Watch Tower headquarters staff.)

The case came up for trial in July 1918. Emma, and her co-defendants, Edward Hamm, E J Sonnenberg and E A Stevens were all found guilty.

The San Bernardino County Sun for July 26, 1918, reported on the verdict on Emma.

The jury recommended leniency in sentencing. The same newspaper for August 1 reported she was sentenced to three years in a federal penitentiary.

Emma and the others immediately appealed and were released on bail of $5000 each, which appears to have been raised by other local Bible Students. The appeals process kept her out of jail until 1920, but ultimately, in May 1920 she surrendered herself to serve her sentence in San Quentin. This was fourteen months after Rutherford et al were released and the same month the government announced that all charges against them had been dropped.

Emma had her photograph taken at San Quentin. Listed on the same records page as burglars and murderers, Emma was a federal prisoner, occupation housewife, convicted of violating Section 3 of the Espionage Age of June 15, 1917.

At the time Emma went to jail there was a concerted Bible Student campaign on her behalf (and her co-defendants) to obtain her release, making a special plea to President Wilson. The Bible Students’ unofficial newspaper The New Era Enterprise accused the government of entrapment. From the New Era Enterprise for July 13, 1920:

Later the same article gave details of how the BOI had behaved when they attended the Bible Students’ meeting with Emma.

In the climate of the times it was not surprising that Emma's sentence was commuted by President Wilson. In fact this had already happened by the time the above report was published. From the San Bernardino County Sun for June 27, 1920:

Her three co-defendants incarcerated on McNeill’s Island penitentiary were also later pardoned.

Emma’s subsequent history is unknown. She lived until 1949 and died aged 79 in Fresno, California.

With grateful thanks to Gary who sent me on the trail. For those who want to read further about how citizens fared during wartime America, Gary recommends Christopher Capozzola's Uncle Sam Wants You - World War 1 and the Making of the Modern American Citizen.  

My Intro Essay Revisited

Rough draft, revised to fit current circumstances, incomplete. It will change. Never rely on a rough draft. Usual rules. You may take a copy for your own use. Do not share it off the blog. Do not use it in your own work without permission or attribution.

This is posted for comment. Please do so. This is a very temporary post and will come down in a FEW days. Time to comment is now.
This post has been deleted.

Missing Tract

In the February 15, 1902 Watch Tower Russell presents extracts from a tract which he entitled "The Hopes of the Early Church Respecting our Lord's Second Coming." The author's name is not given, and it was unknown to the editor of The Herald of Christ's Kingdom, who republished it in the December 1926 issue.

We need to see the original and we need the author's name. Anyone?