I'm glad ...

I'm happy for the flood of blog visitors. Nice of you to visit. Of the 500 or so viistors in the last three days, no one has left a comment. You could at least say,"hi" or something.

Introductory Paragraphs - Chapter 8 in Rough Draft.

This chapter has been one of the hardest to write. I'm sure that the final product will be different. But here it is for your comment. Sorry for the strange formatting issues:

8 Aftermath of Failure

Little of this story has been told. As with much else in this era of Watch Tower history, we find significant purposeful nonsense and just plain bad research. For example, Graig Burns asserts that "the Bible Students had split off from a group of Second Adventists under N. H. Barbour, which later became the 7th-Day Adventist Church."¹ We’re fairly certain Seventh-day Adventists would be surprised to know this. We certainly were.

They were small in number. Firm figures elude us, but we can make an educated guess. They drew from Second Adventists, primarily Advent Christians and Life and Advent Union adherents. Though Second Adventists claimed a combined membership of thirty-thousand world-wide, this was a huge exaggeration and has no basis in fact. Few Adventists found the Barbourite message attractive. Adventists turned to 1877 and then 1879 as probable dates for Christ’s return. Age-to-Come/One Faith adherents numbered less than four thousand.² Many Barbourites came from this group, attracted to it by their Age-to-Come belief. In 1885 Barbour reported that the average monthly circulation of The Herald of the Morning was one thousand, including missionary and give-away issues.³ It was probably somewhat less, and we are probably being generous if say that at its peak, they had something less than two thousand adherents. The regularly published money-received column suggests far fewer committed believers. This was a very small movement.

They expected translation in the spring of 1878. Some were hesitant to name a specific day, but many of them pointed to Passover Day that April.⁴ They saw the work of Moody and Shanky as an extension of their own and as proof that God was calling to Christians preparatory to "the harvest" gathering. Age-to-Come advocates and Second Adventists felt similarly, republishing Moody’s February 1877 sermon on the Lord’s Return. Russell never abandoned belief that Moody did God’s work:

In 1878 there were a great many who had not passed their trial in full; that there were in the nominal churches many thousands who had made full consecration, to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. I remember well Evangelist Moody’s campaign. At that time a great many seemed to be genuine converts, for his preaching seemed to be very different from that of the majority of evangelists. He preached forgiveness through the blood of Christ, and full consecration to God. Many at that time made a full consecration, had their names tentatively written and filled up the list. But when testings came on, many were found unworthy of a higher reward than that of the Great Company. Others taking the places of the failures also had to be tested and sifted.⁵

Revival conversions were often temporary, and lapsed behavior, if not lapsed belief, was common. But the numbers attending Moody’s revivals convinced them that their prophetic scheme was well-founded.

[photo here]

Moody’s Sermon as Republished

by Evangelical Adventists.

"Translation" is seldom defined by modern writers. Age-to-Come adherents saw it as the change from a mortal body to an immortal one. Some postulated a temporary sojourn in heaven before a return to a cleansed earth. Some saw it as mere change without any heavenly experience. Barbour and his associates rejected an "agricultural heavens" or a heaven-on-hearth theology in 1877, believing that the Bride of Christ would have a heavenly home, ruling over a cleansed paradise earth. Translation meant glorification to heaven in a new spirit body to be with and like Christ who was himself a life-giving spirit. This was the next step, the expected next move on the part of an invisibly present Christ.

Others expected translation on the same or similar grounds. S. A. Chaplin, editor of The Restitution, adopted much of Barbourite interpretation.⁶ Writing in the October 9, 1877, issue of The Restitution, he presented the Euphrates River as a prophetic image. He identified it as interloping powers dominating the Promised Land, Immanuel’s Land:

The mystic Euphrates is not much longer to flood Immanuel’s land, in the stage of events now in progress. Immanuel (Jesus) is to become the chief actor in the scenes. During the evaporation of these mystic waters he comes as a thief. This coming is to a locality in the deep ethereal to which he suddenly and secretly removes his elect church. This is the next grand event of prophecy, and is now imminent. Are we living in a state of preparation for the sudden translation? The door into this heavenly household will soon be closed forever, and to all eternity remained closed. The Gospel will soon win the last hair of a crown of glory, and the princely priesthood be complete. The Coming One "Shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth." See Ps Lxii, 8. The Euphrates will not bound his empire, but it will be world-wide. He says, "Behold, I come quickly: hold fast thou hast, that no man take they crown." Rev. iii. 11. And again, "Behold, I come as a thief. Blesses is he that watcheth and keep his garments. This is a warning of current events. Shall we so live as to share a part in his universal reign?⁷

Chaplin saw a two-fold, partially-invisible parousia, and he adopted Barbourite emphasis on the Euphrates as a prophetic symbolism. Translation was at the door. Chaplin spoke out of both sides of his mouth over this issue. He reprinted an article from The Rainbow cautioning against fixing a time, and he printed a letter from a Robert Baker of Kansas who asked: "Who of us will live to see the end of the year 1878? Or will our blessed Lord come and restore all things back to their former beauty?" Baker advised the brethren to be "more earnest in the cause of the Lord."⁸ In fairness to Chaplin, he wrote for a diverse audience who debated issues freely in his paper.

In February 1878 Chaplin printed Russell’s Object and Manner, sending it out as a supplement. In a follow-up article he explained where in her and Russell differed: "We think that the coming Messiah is the same Jesus that died, was buried, rose from the dead, and subsequently ascended from Mouth Olivet into heaven." He rejected the "spirit bodies" arguments found in Object and Manner. He looked "for more tangibility in the resurrection" than did Russell. He closed by observing that "The ‘fair chance’ part of the supplement will probably please some of your readers."⁹ J. B. Cook’s negative review of Object and Manner, noted in the previous chapter, was published in the June 26, 1878, Restitution. It is noteworthy that Cook waited until April past before blasting Barbour. The degree of outrage found in Cook’s review probably indicates a degree of disappointment.

Sending out Object and Manner as a supplement to The Restitution and to Prophetic Times was a last-ditch effort to bring as many into the Light as was possible. Results seem to have been small, a poor return on the money invested. Barbour published a single sheet double issue to Herald of the Morning sometime in the in the spring, giving "the time arguments." No known copies exist, but Barbour claimed it had as much matter as two copies of Russell’s Object and Manner. Ten thousand copies were printed, but not all were circulated, and one could still order it from The Herald in the 1880s.¹⁰ "We tried to make it clear," Barbour recalled, "that [Christ] was present, and that coming into the true condition, he might materialize and meet us at any moment."¹¹ Michael Baxter, who seems to have jumped on nearly every prophetic speculation, published a handbill widely circulated in London, "announcing the approaching translation to heaven of 144,000 Christians without dying." We couldn’t locate this tract, but it was circulated at the end of 1877 and early in 1878.¹²

The spring of 1878 came and went. A Yellow Fever epidemic broke out in the Mississippi Valley. Rutherford B. Hayes was sworn in as President, even though by actual count he lost the election. Democrats were accused of massive voter fraud, and a special commission sustained the charge. There were tensions between Mexico and the United States over cross-border raids by Mexican bandits. Thomas Edison invented the phonograph. William "Boss" Tweed died in jail. England and Russia were on the brink of war. Harley Proctor introduced Ivory Soap, causing Americans to rejoice that they no longer had to fish around the bottom of the tub to find a lost bar of soap. Pope Leo XIII issued a papal bull entitled Inscrutabili Dei Consilio bemoaning the loss of papal influence over public institutions. But nowhere, least of all in Pittsburgh or Rochester, or in any of the little towns and villages where Barbourite adherents lived, was anyone "changed in the twinkling of an eye" or raised to the heavens. Their disappointment was profound.

A. H. Macmillan’s Claims

A. H. Macmillan reported a claim made by "Pittsburgh newspapers" that Russell "was on the Sixth Street bridge dressed in a white robe on the night of the Memorial of Christ’s death, expecting to be taken to heaven." We could not find the original of this newspaper report, though we do not doubt its existence. The fact of the report is interesting, but the conclusions many have drawn from it are distorted. The report, no matter who printed it, was long removed from the events of 1878. Macmillan’s association dates from 1900.¹³ The newspaper article could be no older than that and is probably dated later, perhaps after 1906. As Macmillan has it, Russell’s reaction was to laugh "heartily" and say:

I was in bed that night between 10:30 and 11:00 P.M. However, some of the more radical ones might have been there, but I was not. Neither did I expect to be taken to heaven at that time, for I felt there was much work to be done preaching the Kingdom message to the peoples of the earth before the church would be taken away.¹⁴

One should dispose of the ascension-robe claim first. It was an old, often-repeated calumny. Everyone with clearly defined end-of-the age expectations was subject to it, though there is not one verifiable instance. It is especially out of place when applied to Russell. He expected a change to a spirit body, making any self-made ascension robe irrelevant. He understood the "white robes" of Revelation 6:11 to be symbolic, not literal. That he or any of the Pittsburgh believers dressed in robes is a newspaper reporter’s lie. The story delights Russell’s enemies who discount his denial, and others simply repeat it, believing it to be accurate because it saw print.

If Macmillan reports Russell’s belief that "there was much work to be done" and that he didn’t "expect to be taken to heaven at that time" with any sort of accuracy, then we must presume his doubts to have arisen in the last weeks before April 1878. Any time prior to the spring of 1878, we find Russell and Barbour believing with equal fervor that translation impended.¹⁵ It is apparent that he believed and preached that translation was due. Taken as a whole, this seems a very unreliable report. But we come away from it noting two things: There was among the Pittsburgh brethren a "more radical" party; they were somewhat fragmented.

We see Macmillan’s claim that Russell did not expect translation and that he saw a vast field of work ahead as wrong. Russell wrote that "since 1878 (and never before that) we have felt at liberty to call God’s children out of the nominal churches to a position … where they would be free to serve Him fully."¹⁶ This clearly dates his vision of a vast work to after the disappointment. He also, as we shall see, expected translation in the spring of 1878.

Doubts

That some doubts were expressed is verified by J. H. Paton: "That translation was not due in the Spring of 1878 is certain, and yet too many were inclined to treat others as not ‘in the light" for not expecting it then." Paton described some in the movement as "positive" and "dogmatic," observing that being so "does not make anything true, even if it does make an impression."¹⁷ Be that as it may, any doubts Russell had were, as we shall see, nascent, tenuous.

Barbour introduced the concept of translation as due in 1878 as a mere possibility. Stating his belief that the Resurrection to heaven started in 1875, he suggested that translation might "commence this side of 1878."¹⁸ He felt it would happen no later than 1878. His later statements were more positive. In September 1875 he wrote that the Spring of 1878 marked the second half of a "double" or parallel between first century and nineteenth century events. He looked for "the kingdom" to manifest itself. "To us," he wrote, "this is an important matter; and the evidence seems clear that ‘the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand;’ and that we have entered into the transition, or ‘time of harvest.’"¹⁹ Those who doubted were treated as not in the light of Christ. Post-failure, Barbour denied believing that Christ came as King in 1878. This was, of course, an obvious lie.²⁰

Doubts grew as April approached and events did not play out as they expected. Barbour tried to assuage them: "We had often talked together, that if the time went by we should certainly have an increase of light as on former occasions."²¹ They were fervent, fully convinced, and they were disappointed. "We carefully re-examined our position in the dim light we then had," Barbour wrote. "We were disappointed, having expected that … we should certainly be caught away to meet him. From that time until the autumn, we were all trying to make our lamps throw more light."²² For some the disappointment was especially bitter. They first looked to a date in 1877. The Lockport and Hudson, New York, groups looked to Sunday, July 8, 1877, but on what basis we do not know.²³ Failure of hopes for 1878 was for them especially bitter.

With April’s passage, several doctrinal re-examinations took place. Members of the Allegheny City congregation met to consider matters. William Mann reports this, writing that they "looked back over the chronology, and found it was solid as ever." This was a replay of their approach in 1873, 1874 and 1875. Mann focused on the Elijah "type," their belief that the prophet’s life patterned last-day events. Some fourteen years later, he explained his thinking:

After the disappointments, we looked back over the chronology, and it was solid as ever. Then it began to dawn on me that in following that life journey, we should have seen that if one part was typical, all was typical; and therefore the life, the last journey and the culmination, horses, chariots, fire and ascension, were alike figures of good things to come. A chariot of fire may seem a strange conveyance, but it has a wonderfully purifying effect and a tremendous lifting power. The translation is first ‘from the power of darkness … into the kingdom of his dear son’ Then the progression is ‘Transformed by renewing your mind." It now becomes our privilege to be "raised up," "from the earth, and from earthly things even to sit in ‘The Heavenlies’ with Christ."²⁴

He was reaching for any solution to their misinterpretation short of abandoning their chronology. He saw the inconsistencies in their previous interpretations and replaced them with this. He does not seem to have focused on a continuing work but focused on Christian personality development. When Mann wrote this in 1892, Paton suggested that none of this was a specifically last-times work, writing that "the translation from darkness to light, from Satan’s kingdom to Christ’s and the transforming of the mind have been possible all through the age as well as now, so has it been the privilege of sitting with Christ in the heavenlies."²⁵

Barbour was committed to a pattern of failure, disappointment, and new speculation. He followed in William Miller’s footsteps, seeing each failure as proof of divine leading, if only one could determine what it was. Barbour saw himself as God’s last-days spokesman to the faithful. This was irrational. He took upon himself authority and responsibility he did not have, putting himself at odds with those who did not follow him. There is no other way to describe Barbour than as fanatically blinded to failure. The string of failed dates and expectations between 1873 and 1878 was, for him, proof that they were experiencing advancing truth. It was a chant, almost a song for him.

Others accepted Barbour’s self-definition. James R. Deputy, an adherent from Missouri who’d entered the movement in 1871, writing to Barbour some twenty years after the 1878 failure, was as adamantine as ever:

Being rooted and grounded in these grand truths concerning the restitution of all things, no power on earth can wrest them from us. I have been in this movement for twenty-seven years, and at no time have felt like giving it up. And although getting on in years, my desire and faith is that I shall live to be change to incorruption without tasting death. How much I would like to be at your meetings, and hear you talk about the return of our coming King.²⁶

Others expressed similar views. An H. R. Perine of Denver, Missouri, wrote:

My confidence in this, as a prophetic movement, is unchangeable. Have been a reader of your writings since 1873; have been confident all through this quarter of a century, that we were in a shining pathway that would lead us on to the consummation of our hopes. Have never doubted this; hence, disappointments have not destroyed my confidence and rejoicing.²⁷

Barbour’s self-anointing as God’s last-days prophet meant that he couldn’t simply say, "We’ve been wrong all along. I am sorry." If he had the character of George Storrs, he would have done so. He did not, the difference being that Storrs saw himself as one of God’s servants and Barbour saw himself as God’s servant. Barbour addressed the issue in the June 15, 1878, Herald of the Morning. He recognized that adherents were grievously disappointed:

From 1843 to the present time, the light on the Time and manner of the advent of Christ has been continually on the increase; and as we have passed terminus after terminus of the prophetic and chronological periods … the pathway after each crisis had been passed was made to shine more and more. And now, what we had fully believed to be the last of those terminal points has been reached and passed, and the hoped-for deliverance is still unrealized. And the question is again forced upon us, What scriptural position, if any, can now be occupied in harmony with all this unfolding light in relation to the closing work of this dispensation?

Barbour re-stated his belief that they were entering "the time of trouble" in fulfillment of Daniel 12:1. There "was no room for doubt" that they were, he wrote. "Our reasoning was, that this time of trouble could not progress far until after translation" because the saints were to judge the world. Barbour had to give the whole thing up as bad work or find events to fill the time between when "the time of trouble" began and change to spirit life. He presented a new scheme. Pointing to the "wine press" judgment depicted in Isaiah chapter sixty-three, he suggested his readers "learn that when this ‘winepress’ is trodden, the saints are not yet with Christ." There was more work to do. The "wheat" Christians still in the nominal churches were to be gathered. And the "wheat" had to mature:

If we are not mistaken, there will be a ripening of ‘wheat;’ a sanctification of the spiritual element of the churches, during the next few years by the spread of these glorious truths, which shall not leave a kernel ungarnered. God is in this movement, the glorious light of truth is shining from his word, as it has never shone before; and his ministering spirits are abroad in the land …. And in this dark hour, that is settling down on the nations, the angels are to gather the wheat; not to a locality, but to a condition of victory over the world.

Implicit in this is a claim to a special place in dispensing truth. Barbour’s conviction that he possessed and dispensed "truth" depended on his self-view. He was God’s special spokesman. Those who remained unshaken saw him as such. One woman addressed him as "Dear Leader."²⁸ Helen H. Landis of Rochester, New York, believed every setback was proof of increasing light: "I have been in this glorious pathway since 1875, during which time the light has steadily increased until now (1898), when the pathway is illuminated even to the perfect day."²⁹ To doubt Barbour was to sin. To fail to follow him into every speculation and doctrinal twist was to fall out of the light.

"Although we expected translation this present spring, we find the road leads on a little further," Barbour wrote. He postulated a short period during which true "wheat" Christians would mature and pass through a "fiery" test. "The time for the gathering the wheat of the gospel church may be three and a half years, but cannot be determined with accuracy," he wrote. "Yet, until the wheat is gathered, the change of the living from mortality to immortality cannot be expected." By the end of his article he was more positive: "The work of the gathering of the wheat … will doubtless be about three and a-half years."

Barbour was more disappointed than he admitted in the June 15^th article. After the 1843-1844 failure he was ashamed to have been associated with the Advent Movement. Yet his disappointment then was followed by a reaffirmation of belief with additions and alterations to account for failure.³⁰ He continued that patern after the 1873, 1874, and 1875 failures. These were personal crises calling his faith and authority into question. After the 1875 failure, he published a letter suggesting that he and his assistant editors were like the Two Witnesses of Revelation. He defined the movement as the faithful virgins with himself as head, and his adherents believed that.³¹

Some decades later, Edward Payson Woodward, one of Barbour’s associates in the 1873 movement, commented on Barbour’s exegesis. Woodworth’s comments in their entirety are a bit convoluted and a whole lot disingenuous. He avoided saying that he was involved in the 1873 movement. He avoided using Barbour’s name or Wendell’s. Yet, he touched on the essential weakness of the Barbourite movement:

Certain persons satisfied themselves that Jesus Christ would return to this world in A. D. 1874. The prophecies on which their belief rested were to them so plain, that there seems to have been no doubt in their minds – He would come THEN.

This ‘set time’ went by, and Christ did not appear. Yet, so minute had been the predictions and so positive that statements concerning the expected fulfillment of Prophecy, that (like others previously) it was hard for the men of 1874 to acknowledge … "we were wrong: Christ has not come as we expected.’ On the contrary, they … repeated what had … been said by some connected with the 1844 Time Movement – ‘We were right regarding the Time, though wrong concerning the Event.’ Instead of a frank confession of their error (with an acknowledgement that ‘time-setting’ was wrong in itself), they tried to modify the shock of failure by affirming that Christ did return to earth in 1874, as they had predicted, only HIS RETURN WAS INVISIBLE!

Within not many sentences, Woodward wrote, "Just who originated this ‘device,’ may never be known." That is, of course, a lie. He knew very well who originated it; he had been in the movement up to at least 1874. For Woodward, the issue wasn’t sincerity. Woodward wrote of Russell: "I do not question his honesty in his first belief that the Lord would return in 1874 – others have made a similar mistake." He had, of course, to include himself, though he does not say so. The issue was failure to "admit his own mistakes, as he probably would be insistent that others should admit theirs. While all of these comments are about Barbourite, and later Watch Tower belief concerning 1874, they apply with equal ease to the 1878 disappointment.³²

An article by J. H. Paton followed Barbour’s. He defended the idea of "Definite Time." He refuted several competing concepts, none of which are relevant to this history, then, in defense of Barbourite practice, wrote that their "premature expectations no more invalidate the arguments than the premature expectations of the disciples of Christ proved the incorrectness of their faith in him as the Messiah, and the "day of visitation.’" [sic] Russell didn’t contribute to the July 15^th Herald/ His article appeared in the next issue.

Russell wrote a letter to someone in Lynn, Massachusetts. As Barbour has it he speculated about the "Elijah type" and "that as Elijah went back, and re-crossed the Jordan, so we must return and re-cross, or something to that effect." There is no more detail, but it is evident that Russell sought in prophetic types a remedy for their disappointment. Barbour loved to misrepresent Russell, so he doesn’t give us details but sniffs that "he said nothing to me." Barbour’s italics tell us that he thought Russell owed it to him to consult before preaching.

Barbour reported that "some of the friends" wrote to him saying they were "disgusted" and "thought it was foolish." They were "on the point of ‘giving up the whole movement.’" When this was written, it was in Barbour’s interest to blame division on Russell so he could point to Watch Tower adherents as the "foolish virgins" of Christ’s parable. The real issue for Barbour was Russell’s independent thinking. Re-examining the "Elijah type," which for "some time" they had "looked with interest,"

³³ without consulting him shook Barbour’s confidence. His original statement that Russell had preached new doctrine in Lynn was questioned, and he had to retract it. He also retracted the claim that "some friends" wrote, amending it to a "sister."³⁴

Shortly after the June 15, 1878, Herald of the Morning reached its subscribers, the principals, except for Paton who was hurt in a fall from a carriage,³⁵ met in Rochester. Paton participated through an exchange of letters. Barbour described the meeting:

Bros. R[ussell] and K[eith] at my office in Rochester, and Bro. P[aton] by letter. I endeavored to satisfy them as to the last half of the harvest … &c. They were at first a little stiff, so that I began to realize that there was a division, yet they seemed to see the new light on the present half of the harvest, and some of its work, so much so, that they immediately commenced making a chart, then and there, at our rooms, in harmony with the new position. And, though I had misgivings, that it was not clearly seen and accepted by them; but as they arranged their charts so as to promise with the advanced light, and to show the last 3 1-2 years of the harvest, I hoped for the best.³⁶

Barbour wanted to show them as "eagerly" seeking light from him. He used the word. But he felt his grip on their allegiance slipping. They seemed to doubt. They were reluctant. They were becoming the "foolish virgins." Barbour’s self-esteem depended on being God’s voice. His description of this meeting was designed to show him as the fountain head of truth to which others turned.³⁷ Previously, Russell and Paton had readily deferred to Barbour. That he found them hesitant to accept his new doctrine. (He and his followers would call it the "shining path" doctrine.) Barbour was disturbed. Yet, he reported:

They came and listened to what we [he means himself] had to say; heard the explanations in relation to the last half of the harvest, as it was explained and illustrated on a small paper chart, and immediately copied that chart on a larger scale, and began to preach this advanced light as seen, as soon as they left Rochester, and also in the next articles from their pen, which appeared in the Herald.³⁸

Upon leaving the Rochester meeting, Russell traveled to Lynn, Massachusetts, preaching the extension time for a refining judgment and in-gathering of Saints. They had maybe the next three and a half years. Whoever faulted Barbour for misrepresenting him said Russell "greatly strengthened the brethren." While grudgingly acknowledging he may have misrepresented matters, he implied that Russell rejected the "light" that extended matters to 1881. This was false.³⁹

Barbour seems to exaggerate what ever reluctance Russell and B. W. Keith felt. The issues to which he points were not the immediate cause of group fragmentation. Russell, accepted the new emphasis on the Wedding Garment and the extended time of favor to nominal Christians gladly. Describing this period he wrote:

Coming to the spring of 1878, the time parallel to the giving up of the Jewish church and ending of the Gospel church by the Spirit, we naturally and not unreasonably expected some change of our condition, and all were more or less disappointed when nothing supernatural occurred. But our disappointment was brief, for we noticed that the Jewish church (and not the Gospel church) was the pattern of ours, and therefore we should not expect parallels to Pentecost or to anything which happened in the beginning of this church.

We looked again at the Jewish church as the pattern and saw that though Jesus gave them up as a fleshly house at the close of his three and a half years ministry, yet he continued special favor to them …

We then looked for the parallel to this in the Gospel Age and found that the nominal Gospel church, the parallel of the Jewish church, was "cast off" or "left desolate," "spewed out" at the parallel point of time, 1878, but was due to have favor as individuals for three and a half years, or until the autumn of 1881, during which they were to separate themselves from the

"Babylon" church.⁴⁰

Some of the new thoughts were the developed as late as the spring of 1879, but the most important of them appeared in Barbour’s July 15^th article. Russell noted that their disappointment was "brief." This seems to mark Barbour’s claim that they were reluctant learners as exaggerated.

None of them gave up preaching set time, but their emphasis changed. Russell noted this:

Up to 1878, though Restitution was the key note, and entire consecration was always urged, yet the time element was one of the most prominent features always. Since 1878, however, though the same time element is recognized in all our preaching and teaching, and is repeatedly referred to as a proof of our position, yet the direct teaching of time has almost stopped among all the preaching brethren-- and this too, without any pre-concerted arrangement, and without any other reason, than that other elements of truth came into greater prominence.

⁴¹

With the July 1878 issue, Barbour converted the Herald of the Morning into a monthly, dropping the notice that it was published by Barbour and Russell. Russell’s post-failure article appears in that issue.

Russell’s Article

This was going to be in a previous post's comment trail ...

It's too long to post there. So I've posted it here.

There's nothing for anyone to be afraid of, unless one is afraid of well-researched, detailed history. Mr. Schulz is a Witness. He's kept us on an "even keel". But we certainly touch on unexpected, unexplored areas.

Probably we've written a book that will make everyone a bit unhappy. We burst myths on both sides. Conspiracy theorists won't like the book. Those who think Russell developed some beliefs on his own won't like it either.

We just tell the story as the documents reveal it. Those who point to a Millerite origin for Bible Student belief are in for a shock. Someone sends me links to posts by a man named Terry. He promotes that myth.

It is myth. Storrs is often called a prominent Adventist. Storrs left Adventism in 1844. None of his doctrine after 1844 can be characterized as Adventist.

There is a totally untold story there. We do our best to tell it in enough detail to clarify issues.

We take swipes at pro and anti writers. There is myth on both sides. We want the myth to go away.

A fault with pro-Russell writers is that they remove the human element. We do our best to put it back. So we tell the story of Sunderln's opium addiction. We tell the story of Russell peeping through a blast furnace window and cringing at the thought of eternal torment.

Best we can, we tell you who he met, who he talked to and what books he read. We reconnect him with people and places modern accounts ignore.

Some of the more controversial parts of his life we save for book three. The plan is to cover the years from 1886 to 1916 on book three. That may change. As we collect documentation for those years I can see we may need to plan for a book four also on the Russell years.

We've tried to restore human personalities. We quote from their writings. We occasionally point out extremes of thought and behavior, but we do that in the person's own words.

What you've read so far about Watch Tower history is often wrong, if for no other reason than that most writers give incomplete detail.

Some just make things up. That sort of thing is all over the Internet. Some disconnect themselves from the 19th Century. That's easy to do. In his introductory essay Mr. Schulz asks our readers to read Alcott's Little Women. This made me laugh, but it IS a really good way to connect to the era. All the attitudes and many of the daily life issues are touched on by Alcott. And its a lovely book.

While we don't shy away from issues as they arise, this is not an Anti-Witness book. It is, we hope, just good solidly historical, story-telling.

In the last chapter, which we're writing now (last for vol. 1 of this book) we consider the Ransom-Atonement controversy. As usually told, Russell understood the ransom doctrine correctly and fully; Barbour did not. Nothing of the kind is true.

Russell comes off better than Barbour in this controversy. Barbour thought he was God's spokesman. He argued his point to absurdity. Russell only understood that Christ's death made atonement possible. He struggled for detailed understanding. He says so.

Why those who've written about this ignore what he said is a mystery.

Personally, I hope our book, academic in format though it is, upsets everyone just a tad.

There is a lot of detail here and many quotations. The best way to tell this story is, as I've hinted above, in the words of the participants. If one of them is obnoxious, then let their words show it.

In volume 2 we will tell what happened to A. D. Jones. Russell says he fell prey to ambition "or something." Dear heart, that's not half the story.

If one wants an overall picture of the watch tower movement, they should read the Procliamers book. Ours is much more detailed and much closer to "truth" as a result.

"The story is in the details," is Mr. Schulz's favorite saying. Or one of them. And it is a true one.

We will tell you things you do not know. Some of them are amusing. In a footnote we tell you about Keith's aged father running away with the housekeeper, returning married. We tell you about Paton's adventures with tobacco when he was eleven. We tell you about the civil war life of many of the principals. We tell you their occupations, about their wives if it's important.

... And the photos ... we've found the best we can, though some of them are quite poor. We have two of B. W. Keith, one from old age and one when he was maybe 30 years younger. Photos of Paton and others such as S. A. Chaplin. (ever heard of him?), P. G. Bowman. We have a photo of the Russell's Presbyterian pastor and one of Russell's Congregational pastor.

I've rambled away from the point. No one has anything to fear from this book, except ... they might find a cherished myth to be just a myth. That Mr. Schulz is a Witness has kept this book balanced. His response to my many speculations is always, "prove it, and we'll use it."

Speculations drive research. Speculations do not substitute for solid research.

We document everything (If we missed something, I don't know it.) Chapter one tells the story of  Russell's parents and his young manhood and something about his business ventures. It's 55 pages long. It has detail you will not have seen. It trashes a recently published book - rather soundly. ... And it has 244 footnotes ... so, if you want to, you can follow our trail.

Russell attended this conference.

Of those sponsoring this conference, we know he met and talked to J. A. Seiss, L. C. Baker, G. C. Needham (Pretty much a bastard in my view.), D. W. Whittle (ditto), H. L. Hastings, W. V. Feltwell, Josiah Litch. We suspect he met others of the sponsors, but can't prove he did.

Of those attending we know he met Jenny Smith, an author. (Interesting story there.)

One of several suggested covers ...

Can you do better?

The Other Doctor Thomas

by "Jerome"

(a slight revision of an article first published on Blog 2 in May 2011)

A Church of God General Conference historian Mark Mattison in a widely circulated article The Provenance of Russellism makes some links between the Age to Come (One Faith) movement and the early work of Charles Taze Russell. In Mattison’s estimation there are actually few connections. However, the research on this blog has made a lot more, starting at least with an Allegheny group meeting at Quincy Hall, Lacock Street, being listed as a One Faith congregation under the pastoral care of Elder G D Clowes in 1874. (The Restitution, November 5, 1874). (Clowes’ death would be noted in ZWT for March 1889 – reprints page 1110)

But there is one fundamental error this article would like to address – the identity of a Dr Thomas who is quoted in Zion’s Watch Tower in June 1881. Mattison tries to make a connection between what became three distinctive religious groups. The paragraph in question reads:

The most interesting point of contact, however, appears in the Zion's Watch Tower, June 1881, Vol. 2, No. 12. The evidence is a short two-sentence by-line of an article entitled "The Credibility of the Scriptures." It reads: "Extracts from an Address Delivered by Dr. J. H. Thomas before the 'Liberal League' (an Infidel Society), of this City and published in the Restitution." Three related movements are represented here. Charles Russell, the founder of what was to become the Jehovah's Witnesses, printed an article by John Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphians, via The Restitution, the official publication of the Church of God. (end of quote)

The article identifies Dr J H Thomas with John Thomas the founder of the Christadelphians. That is incorrect. Although Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR) does not give a date – which no doubt led to the writer’s assumption – it can be established that the address given before the Pittsburgh Liberal League dates from around May 1881. Dr. John Thomas died ten years earlier in 1871.

The other Dr Thomas, J H Thomas MD, lived in Pittsburgh. In 1881 his address was 25 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. (The Christadelphian October 1881). From the late 1860s he had corresponded with Robert Roberts, editor of The Christadelphian. In the early 1880s Thomas branched out to include The Restitution with his submissions. From 1881 he became a regular Restitution contributor, and at least four of his sermons were reprinted as tracts and sold by their office. This apparently continued until his Christadelphian brethren caught up with him!

His first published lecture is in the January 26, 1881 issue of The Restitution, given before the Liberal League, Pittsburgh, Pa. on January 16. The title is ‘Man as He Was, as He Is, and as He Shall Be’ and from the May 18 issue of Restitution is advertised as a tract.

Dr Thomas followed this with another lecture given at the Liberal League which was reprinted in The Restitution on May 18, 1881, covering pages 2 and 3. No date is given, but it would have been very shortly before publication. The title was Reasons Why I Believe the Bible to Be the Word of God. This was the lecture picked up by CTR and republished in abridged form under the new title The Credibility of Scripture in Zion’s Watch Tower June 1881 (reprints pp. 231-233). CTR credits The Restitution for the original, and adds that the Liberal League is an Infidel Society.

This too was turned into a Restitution tract, being advertised from the June 1, 1881 issue onwards.

While a Bible Study group led by CTR was now active, with its own regular magazine, there was obviously still a separate Age to Come presence in the Pittsburgh area. While their meetings were not advertised in The Restitution as such, a correspondent, Samuel Wilson, in the November 8 issue of 1882 spoke of One Faith meetings in Pittsburgh. He wrote (on page 3):

“From Brother L C Thomas I learned that a body of believers has been called out in Pittsburgh, and that they meet regularly each week. This, as your readers will remember is the home of Brother J H Thomas who has written a number of powerful articles and pamphlets recently. I have not had the pleasure of meeting any of the brethren at Pittsburgh but hope that ere long there may be some means by which all of like precious faith in the East may be able to have stated general assemblies for mutual work and fellowship.” (end of quote).

How long these regular weekly meetings continued is not known. That they were well distanced from CTR’s activities was made quite clear in The Restitution for February 22, 1882, page 1, when Dr Thomas went out on a preaching tour from Pittsburgh to meet scattered groups of like faith. When visiting Bloomsburg he wrote: “I am sorry to say that the believers here are tinctured with Russelism (sic), which is subversive of the truth as it is in Jesus”. A Christadelphian observer, a Brother Bittles, wrote his own report to The Christadelphian for May 1882: “Dr Thomas lectured twice at Berwick, Pa., and once at Bloomsburg, Pa. at which places he did much to neutralize the influence of that subtle enemy of God’s truth, called Russellism, which is a mottled mixture of truth and Universalism”.

It is interesting to note that by the third year of Zion’s Watch Tower publication, CTR’s activities were sufficiently unique for the epithet Russellism to be in common use in at least two journals, with the assumption that readers would understand what was meant.

The One Faith group knew quite a bit about CTR. Three Worlds had been advertised in its pages (May 30, 1877). Then Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return was sent to all Restitution subscribers at CTR’s expense (February 27, 1878) and was subsequently reviewed unfavourably by J B Cook in the June 26, 1878 issue.

As the gulf widened, it would be interesting to know if Russell and Thomas knew each other personally. As professional men in the same area as well as writers on religious topics it would be unusual if their paths did not literally cross at some time.

Dr Thomas’s flirtation with The Restitution provoked controversy amongst Christadelphians. There was even a warning about him the January 1883 Christadelphian. “Brother Gunn writes: I had hoped that some of the brethren in the United States would have cautioned you long ago against Dr J H Thomas, who certainly is not sound in doctrine, and is striving to hold a position in which he can do great damage to the truth – passing as a Christadelphian and fraternizing with the vile Restitution...”

Not surprisingly, readers of The Restitution did not take too kindly to their paper being called “vile” and there was some correspondence on the subject.

A debate rumbled on in The Christadelphian. Editor Roberts defended his decision in the January 1883 issue to publish works by Thomas, stating he had published them in good faith from a man of education who had sent in publications “apparently in harmony with the truth”. Correspondents in the April 1883 issue added that “(Thomas) seems to hold the truth himself, but is unprepared to exact it in every particular as the basis for fellowship with others”.

It was around this juncture that Thomas decided to relocate. What appears to be his last letter to The Restitution for a number of years (December 12, 1883) showed he had moved to Rochester, NY. It reads:

I wish to correspond with a physician holding the truth or favorable thereto, with a view to joining with me in the electro-medical treatment of acute and chronic diseases. He must be a graduate and accustomed to general practice – a thoroughly honorable and practical man. Would prefer an unmarried man.

Address, Dr J H Thomas, 90 North Avenue, Rochester, NY (end of quote).

 

Of interest is that Nelson Barbour, also an exponent of electro-medical therapies, was already in Rochester. One wonders if their paths crossed, and how Thomas’ relocation affected the Age to Come congregation in Pittsburgh.

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper lists Dr J H Thomas as a speaker at Christadelphian meetings in Rochester at least between 1884 and 1888, but then things appear to change again. The Christadelphian for May 1890 reported on a debate on the resurrection, between a “brother” Williams and Dr J H Thomas of Rochester. Thomas is not listed as “brother” and the resulting pamphlet from the debate is being sold by Williams.

By this time, Thomas had returned to the pages of The Restitution. Articles, letters, even one poem, appeared again from the February 13, 1889 issue onwards. A funeral report in the August 8, 1894 issue has a service conducted by Dr J H Thomas of Pittsburgh, so Thomas had now gone back to Pittsburgh. Assuming that Pittsburgh only held one J H Thomas MD at the time, his Pittsburgh address was given in a patent remedy advertisement found in the San Francisco Call newspaper the following year, April 6, 1895, page 5. A testimonial from J H Thomas, MD, 320 Liberty Street, Pittsburgh, Pa. reads:

For several months I have been suffering from rheumatism, I had taken all the usual remedies with no real benefit. I took one bottle of Paine’s celery compound and found myself much improved. The second bottle is nearly gone and I consider myself cured. (end of quote).

Forget electro-medical therapies - celery juice was the answer!

Perhaps the final coda to the story of Dr Thomas comes from The Christadelphian in 1925. There is a brief funeral report from Pittsburgh for a Sister Thomas, widow of Dr J H Thomas.

Ultimately the link with CTR is brief. Thomas and CTR lived in the same area for some time, and on that basis likely met. CTR published one of Thomas’s lectures. However, in other lectures (as recounted in both The Restitution and The Christadelphian) Thomas warned people of the dangers of Russellism.

But he certainly wasn’t the Doctor Thomas who founded the Christadelphians. On that score perhaps we can leave the last word to The Christadelphian for September 1882. In commenting on J H Thomas’s tract The Word Made Flesh, the by-line wryly comments:

An exposition that would probably be endorsed by the other Dr Thomas if he were not in Greenwood Cemetery.

Acknowledgement – my thanks to correspondent “baptisedbeliever” who provided the references from The Christadelphian.

If ...

the gentleman from Colorado would stay off this blog and my personal blog, I should be much obliged.

And we REALLY need help with this one ...

 

Lexington Leader. (Lexington, Okla.), Vol. 19, No. 12, Ed. 1 Friday, December 16, 1904

Little Mysteries

We make a surprising amount of progress by solving little mysteries. We don't solve them all, of course. But when we do, we're often led into interesting, even importnt bits of the Watch Tower story. Here is one of the unsolved little mysteries:

Russell had friends in the Richmond, Virginia, area from the 1870s. Some left with Paton in the 1880s. So the mystery here is: who lived at 302 West Grace Street, Richmond, VA, in August 1900?

This illustrates one of the most difficult aspects of original historical research. Little questions such as this one are not easy to answer. Doing so is time consuming, and it's often a fruitless quest. If we don't try, we write off what might be an important, or merely interesting, detail. Want to give it a try?

Find the name that attaches to this address. ...

We know a number of things about the Watch Tower congregation in Richmond. In this era various names were used. The Richmond congregation called itself The Watchers. The met in Marshall Hall for an hour of Bible Study followed by "preaching." We can put names to few associated with this congregation.

We need

A really good photography of Co-operative Hall at 14 Howard Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

We need a volunteer

We need a volunteer to transcribe the Herald of the Morning atonement articles from 1878 into a Word or WordPerfect document. Anyone?

This will save us a huge amount of time.

J. H. Paton - Civil War Photo

The work in New York - 1891

Blog visitors

We get many visitors, but few leave comments. Some feedback would be nice, even if it is something like, "I read your post. I really [liked/hated] it because ..."

C. T. Russell in France -1912

Used with permission of the owner. Click on image to view the entire photo.

Update on progress

Work on the last chapter of volume one continues. We face several challenges, the most important of which is making obscure theological arguments understandable to modern readers. Many of the "arguments" used by Russell, Barbour and others are irrelevant to modern readers. Yet, the story is not complete without considering them. Decisions were made based on convoluted, half-reasoned articles. The decisions were the basis for further developments. We have to consider the arguments and balance that against not boring our readers silly.

We introduce H. B. Rice in this chapter. We have a good quality photo and tones of never-published material. His story is more interesting than the theological arguments and just as important. Almost everything published about him is wrong. But that’s not unusual.

Some one sent me a link to a short essay by a man posting as Terry. He says Russell was an Adventist with roots in the Millerite movement and that all of Russell’s doctrine came from Barbour. This is obnoxiously wrong. Sending me links to this man’s post is a waste of time. He never gets it right.

But, we still welcome assistance. We turn up interesting things sometimes, even from material that is otherwise wrong.

New to us today is a photo of Calista Downing. We have a good portrait photo sent by a Downing family member. The one we received today is not so clear, but it shows her with her Chinese students.

C. B. Downing and her students in 1900. Downing is in the back row, left.

We hope our book attracts general-interest readers. We’ve written with an academic audience in mind, but we will have failed if only academics read it. Mr. Schulz, who started this project and remains its guiding light, frequently says, "the story is in the details." I agree with that. We tell a very detailed story, talking you places no one else has. To do this we introduce you not just to new "facts" but we explain theological arguments, conclusions and trends. We take you to their real backgrounds.

Someone who read our biography of N. H. Barbour regretted that there was no "scandal" in it. I’m not certain what kind of personality dotes on scandal. We take up some supposed scandal, but on close examination it goes away or attaches to others than the ones you might expect. There is more of "scandal" in volume two. A. D. Jones and his second wife became notorious. Fornication, fraud, bigamy, a hint of murder. Tisk. Conley and his faith cure home run by a Missionary Alliance clergyman who liked the young women too much and who ran off and started his own cult. Double tisk. L. A. Allen who lost her virginity to a Barbourite evangelist. Much of this is in volume two, a small amount in volume one. If you like scandal, that’s about the limit in this era (1870-1887).

The falling out between Russell and Barbour, the subject of our last chapter in volume 1, exposes the raw feelings that doctrinal difference caused. Barbour is such an interesting (though nasty) character. Here’s a snippet from this chapter:

"Revisionists more contemporary to ourselves have said that Russell never claimed to be the Faithful Servant.¹ This is what our grandmother (Great Grandmother for one of us) would have called "hooie." Russell believed that he was "chosen for his great work from before birth," telling his associates that.² While most of this argument is best played out in Book Three of this series, we should note that Russell never corrected claims that he was "that servant." Examples of "uncorrected" claims are found in various convention reports where he is frequently referred to as "that Servant." Russell saw himself in this era as a divinely appointed teacher. Starting in 1895, he described himself as "God’s mouthpiece first as a reference to the Millennial Dawn series which, of course he wrote; then as a direct reference to himself.³ The only other way he used this phrase was to refer to God’s prophets of old.

"A feeling of divine appointment was not unique to Russell, Barbour, et. al, but is found in the writings of many clergymen. This would probably have remained a non-issue for Russell and Paton if it hadn’t been set against Barbour’s more extreme view of self. Three God-chosen ministers, each with a different message could not long endure in the same association."

We confess to a bit of pleasure, though perhaps shaded with unkindness on occasion. There is so much that is wrong, often purposely distorted, that we pick apart, sometimes snappishly. We expect people who pretend to be experts in the field of Watch Tower history or belief to be as competent as we are. We’re often disappointed. We start this chapter with this:

"Little of this story has been told. As with much else in this era of Watch Tower history, we find significant purposeful nonsense and just plain bad research. For example, Graig Burns asserts that "the Bible Students had split off from a group of Second Adventists under N. H. Barbour, which later became the 7th-Day Adventist Church."⁴ We’re fairly certain Seventh-day Adventists would be surprised to know this. We certainly were."

We’ve encountered worse than this and in friendlier guise than Mr. Burns’ book. A Watch Tower writer claimed that W. T. Ellis was a Watch Tower evangelist. This is, of course, wrong. We enjoy setting matters in order. We expect the same "stuff" will continue to be written because there is no real interest in changing what is a mythology – really a dual mythology one part of which presents Russell as saint and the other as demon. We present the story as accurately as possible. What others do with it is not within our control.

This touches on the roots of belief, on why people choose to believe what they choose to believe. I’ve spent some time reading about the roots of belief and doubt, coming away from it all very dissatisfied. We leave those issues largely unaddressed because we simply do not know why some of these characters chose the paths they followed. We can only tell you what they said and did, unless they give us the reasons behind their acts.

So … we’re down to this last chapter, an introductory essay, and an afterward. There are a few months of work left. We’re waiting on a microfilm. I expected it by now, but it hasn’t arrived.

There are remaining issues we’ll probably have to leave as is. We need someone in New York City to view and copy material at Columbia University. That is the prime issue with volume one. We need some photos, but can live without them. We spent some time trying to trace H. B. Rice’s family papers, but emails went unanswered or those who did answer couldn’t help. We were unable to consult some of the Pittsburgh newspapers, though we found some significant material. We will publish with or without access to this material.

We need for volume 2 a microfilm from the Library of Congress. It costs about $350.00. We operate on a shoe-string budget. We can’t afford this at all. If someone lives in the District of Columbia area, they could help by viewing the material for us and copying the significant parts.

We will need help marketing this book. If you buy it and like it, tell others, post about it, spread the word.

John Paton's Farewell

From the very last page of the very last issue of John H Paton’s World’s Hope, Volume 34, number 16, August 15, 1916.

If he had only continued publishing for a few more months he would no doubt have written an obituary for CTR.

We need help ...

tracing down a G. Wood, resident in St. Maur, France, in the late 1870s. Full name would be great, occupation is important, anything at all will help.

We also need a photo and additional information about Elijah Beck, a retired farmer from Buchanan, Michigan. Russell preached there in August 1878. A news report of his sermon would be great. We can't find one. Bruce emailed a Beck descendant, but we haven't heard back yet.

We need

Any historical docmentation for the Springfield and Alton Bay Second Adventist conferences in 1878. Newspaper articles would be good. Photos, but only of that year, would be excellent.

Also ... A. P. Adams opened a series of meetings in Beverly, MA, in August 1878. Can anyone find a newspaper report?

Can you help with this?

A Watch Tower evangelist was in Buffalo, New York, in September 1886. Can you help us put a name to these advertisements?

The Huntington, New York, Long-Islander -- Nov. 5,1892

Mr. Schulz posted this on another forum ...

We have one chapter and a bunch of edits to go before volume one of our next book is released. (for those who don't know or have forgotten, the first book in this series is Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. It's a history of Barbour and his associates.) Our next book details Watch Tower history from Russell's childhood to about 1887. There is overlap on each side of that date.

To further our research we're seeking Brother Russell's letters. We've located a few. We would like to see more. If you have some to share, please contact me through our blog.

We are also interested in the personal letters (and photos) of early Bible Students.

Some of you may be interested in our new book. If you visit our public history blog you can see some pages in rough draft. I think Miss de Vienne and I tell a compreshensive story, giving more detail than ever published before. We draw on contemporary records and avoid when possible secondary sources. There will be photos you've never seen before. We used personall letters, court documents, county records, wills, contemporary newspaper articles and similar items. If you look at the sample pages, you'll see an illustration taken from church records of the Russells' membership in a presbyterian church in Philadelphia.

We recount in considerable detail the history of Russell's friends and associates, setting the record straight in several areas. We consider Russell's association with One Faith believers, something no one else has done. Though we do not have a firm page count for volume one yet, it will be about 325 pages and have perhaps fifty or more mostly never seen photos.

The chapters are:

1. Developing a Religious Voice. Russell's childhood to young adulthood. His family's history. A huge amount of detail is here. It's about fifty single spaced pages with illustrations.

2. Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians and Age-to-Come Believers: 1869-1874. This chapter contains extensive biographies of J. Wendell and G. Stetson. It explains their belief systems and shows Stetson's shift in association from the AC Church to One Faith (today best represented by Abrahamic Faith congregations). We draw some of this from Stetson's personal letters. We also consider G. D. Clowes, J. T. Ongley and G. Cherry, each of whom played a part in Russell's history. Among the illustrations is a Church Directory taken from an early isse of an Age-to-Come journal that lists the Allegheny Church not as Adventist but as One Faith.

3. Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians and Age-to-Come Believers: 1874-1876. We present an extensive biography of G. Storrs, demonstrating his shift from Adventism to independent Age to Come belief. We tell much of this story from his own words as found in Bible Examiner and Herald of Life. The focus of this chapter is on the interactions between the Russell's and Storrs especially as shown by letters and notices found in Bible Examiner. We detail the Russells' experience with E. L. Owen. We tell what happened to the Church of God group in Allegheny, later Pittsburgh. We tell about Russell's stormy relationship the the Christadelphians in Pittsburgh and near by places. We mention his interatctions with independent millenialists and SDA believers.

4. Separate Identity. This chapter, some thirty pages, considers the independent Bible Class, its known memebers and the development of a clearly stated theology.

5. Meeting the Principals: Russell's Entry into the Barbourite Movement. This considers those who were prominent among Barbour's associates. We present an extensive biography of J. Paton. Among the sources are numerous issues of Paton's magazine, his diary and other similar items. We also present biographies of B. W. Keith, S. H. Withington, Ira and Lizzie Allen, Avis Hamlin. Each of these played a part in the Watch Tower's development. Most of them are unknowns. We solve that problem. There are photos of Paton (from his family) and Hamlin and Keith. We tell exactly what the place of each was in Russell's history.

6. Barbour and Russell: The Early Ministry. Huge amount of detail on their interactions between August 1877 and the Spring of 1878. This is a key period in Russell's personal history. It is taken from original documents, newspaper articles and the writings of both men. About 45 pages of material few have ever seen.

7. Russell and Barbour: The Fruitage. This chapter considers the historiaclly most important of those accepting their message. We consider Caleb Davies, W. I. Mann, J. Tavender, J. C. Sunderlin, A. P. Adams, telling our readers why each of these men was important to Russell. We dran on Sunderlin's personal letters, the records of Adams' trial before the Methodist authorities, and other original records. There are photos of Davies, Tavender, Sunderlin and Adams. We also present details that help one understand issues not fully explained in Zion's Watch Tower.

8. Aftermath of Failure. This considers their expectations for the spring of 1878 and the separation and controversies that followed.

Volume 2 will take up the story, following it to just past the publication of The Plan of the Ages. Everything is footnoted so there are no unsupportable claims and anyone who wishes can follow our reseach path.

So this is nearly our last call for documentation that may help before we publish volume one. Anything you have, no matter how trivial you may think it would be of interest. Can you help?

Let me tell you about our next book ....

I usually post articles like this on my personal blog, but this one will go here. I’m smooshing [yes I know that’s not a standard English word] together my new research and Mr. Schulz’s 1990 research paper. This will be the last full chapter of volume one of our new book. It tells the tale of the 1878 disappointment, Barbour and Russell’s eventual separation, and the controversy that followed. 

Most people know the basics, I think. The story is told in two or three paragraphs in most histories of the Watch Tower movement. I can tell you now that you don’t know the full story. Wickedpedia and other silly sites reference A. H. Macmillan’s story about some standing on the Sixth Street Bridge at midnight. It didn’t happen. His claim that Russell saw much work ahead and didn’t expect translation is also false. I’m not saying he lied; he just got it wrong.

Russell tells an entirely different story. We’ve found a lot of that, people making claims that can’t be sustained. We start this chapter with one of those:

“Little of this story has been told. As with much else in this era of Watch Tower history, we find significant purposeful nonsense and just plain bad research. For example, Graig Burns asserts that “the Bible Students had split off from a group of Second Adventists under N. H. Barbour, which later became the 7th-Day Adventist Church.”[1] We’re fairly certain Seventh-day Adventists would be surprised to know this. We certainly were.”

It’s fun to be a little bit snippy. So much we read is just silly.

Much more interesting to me is Russell’s separate doctrinal development. While he and Barbour were slugging it out over the Atonement doctrine, Russell was perusing an independent Bible study that lead to new approaches to previous beliefs. This is all new research for us, but I think we grasp the basics. What were these new thoughts? Read the book when it’s published.

Not surprisingly, we find Barbour misstating events. He does that. He thought he was God’s special mouthpiece, the “leader” of the little flock. He, at all costs, appeared in the best light possible, even if that meant that he lied about his associates.

An obnoxious fabricator claims that Russell stole the Herald of the Morning subscription list. This is a stupid claim. The Herald had fewer than 1000 subscribers. Russell sent his new magazine to 6000 individuals. More importantly, Russell was part owner of the Herald, even if Barbour later denied this. Notices in the semi-monthly issues said so as did periodical listings in the public press.

 

 

Click the illustration to view it all.

Right now, this remains a complex, tangled mess. That won’t last. Research always starts that way. This book is nothing like what we imagined. The real story is so much more interesting – and … well … different.

We puzzle through why they believed what they believed. I do not mean we don’t understand their chain of reasoning. They published all that. I mean I want to know why they believed what was sometimes improbable. Charles Pierce, a contemporary of Russell’s, wrote that, “The characteristics of belief are three. First, there is a certain feeling with regard to a proposition. Second, there is a disposition to be satisfied with the proposition. And third, there is a clear impulse to act in certain ways, in consequence.” It’s hard to argue with that proposition. They wanted to believe. So they believed. The limits of belief were the scriptures as they understood them.

Doubt also plays a part in this story. Pierce wrote that doubt “may approximate indefinitely to belief.” That is, as long as there is belief, there will be doubt. He gave several causes for ‘doubt,’ and I think we see them all at work in this story. Doubt in this history drove investigation. And investigation is the life blood of cogent thought. The theologies that descend from Russell, Barbour and others were driven by investigation and doubt. We, of course, do not express an opinion on the success of any of the actors in this story; we only tell you what they did, and if they let us know, why they did it.

We’ve worked hard to turn names into living personalities. Everyone with even mild interest in Watch Tower history knows the name B. W. Keith. Benjamin Wallace Keith had a personality all of his own, built out of experiences and friendships. His aged father ran off and married someone far his junior. We tell you that. He married twice. He lost children to disease and bee sting. We tell you all those small details. And we hope that the story comes alive through them.

Sunderlin was adopted. He and Keith were both wounded in the Civil War. Sunderlin suffered endlessly from a wound that ran down the length of his spine. Best we can put together is that he was prone, shooting, and a bullet traveled down his spine. He became an opium addict. Didn’t know that did you? He found relief from his pain and the addiction in a medication that probably only had a placebo effect. But it worked for him.

We have photos of Keith and Sunderlin. They’ll appear in the new book.

L. A. Allen, one of the original Watch Tower contributors, was a young woman. We tell you some of her life issues. This is a partially told tale. We simply do not know enough detail to say more than what we will say. I wish we did. Her issues lead her to Universal Salvation belief.

Russell, in a very obscure, hard to find place, tells of looking through a blast furnace peephole and thinking about the horrors of hell. Knowing that doesn’t add much to the story, really. But it’s colorful. It gives a flat story something of his personality.

Bet you didn’t know about Russell’s furniture store? His stock market investments? Read the book when it comes out, and you will.

We “take to task” a number of writers on both sides of the aisle. So much [insert slightly vulgar word here] has been written … and believed … that we have to address some of it. Zydeck’s book comes in for a thrashing. It’s not nice to make things up. Bits of things found in dissertations and thesis are beat with a hammer. Most of you won’t have read any of those, but some of them rest at the back of books and pamphlets you would have read if you’ve pursued this at all. Our goal is to present as accurate a history as we can.

An example? Here’s a paragraph:

Owen W. Muelder wrote that Storrs “studied at Princeton, graduated from Andover Theological Seminary, and was a professor of theology as Western Reserve College in Ohio. In 1828, he lived in South Carolina where he observed the grim reality of a slaves’ life.” None of this is true. Records of his ordination and ministry have him in New Hampshire through all this period.[2] A brief biography prefacing one of his books appears to be a product of Storrs’ own pen, and, as such, probably speaks authoritatively about his early religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, his introduction to spiritual thought came from his mother. Storrs and his siblings received their first and primary religious instruction at her knees. Storrs remembered her as “ever watchful over their religious instruction, while the father was most studious to promote their temporal welfare.” Lucinda Storrs “gathered her children around her, particularly on the Sabbath, to give them instruction in the things pertaining to God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.”

We want it “right.” If we fail, it’s our own fault, of course. But we strive for accuracy no matter where it takes us.

Another example, this one from a discussion of the Allegheny Bible Class:

A. D. Jones was not a member, despite claims by various writers. Neither was George Stetson, though he may have met with them on the odd occasions when he was in Allegheny. Jones came into the picture in 1878, and Stetson was centered in Edinboro and could not regularly attend though he preached to the Church of God congregation every other week for a period, and in December 1872 he preached there twice each Sunday. The claim made by an Internet based encyclopedia that George Storrs attended regularly is a fabrication. The entire article in which that claim appears should be rejected by serious researchers.

Wading through secondary sources for this period (roughly 1870-1887) leaves the stain of Augean Stables on one. … Which is a nice way of saying really bad stuff about what most have written. We understand that we’ve had extraordinary access to some material not available to most writers. But most of this story has been available to anyone who looked. They just haven’t looked.

Writing this has been a challenge. Melding two writing styles into one readable document is not the least of our challenges. Finding material has been an even bigger task. If you’ve read this blog for a while you’ve seen a long list of “needs and wants.” We still need most of those.

On the other hand, family members of some of those we write about have found us or we’ve found them, and they’ve contributed surprising things. We’ve had help from Wendells, Barbour descendants, von Zech’s family, J. A. Brown’s distant granddaughter, and others. This has added richness to this story.

Mr. Schulz often says, “The story is in the details.” This is an excellent maxim.

---

[1]               G. Burns: Exit From Soul-Abuse: Redefining Extremist Cults, Trafford Publishing, 2012, page 454. Burns is an ex-Witness. One wonders how he could associate with that religion for twenty-four years and not know the basics of Watch Tower history.

[2]               O. W. Muelder: Theodore Dwight Weld and the American Anti-Slavery Society, Jefferson, North Carolina, 2011, page 89. Storrs ministry in this period is well documented, presenting this record: Admitted on trial to the New England ME Conference 1825; Ordained deacon by Bishop Hedding at Lisbon, June 10 1827 and elder by the same at Portsmouth, June 15 1829; Appointments Landaff, 1825; Sandwich, 1826-7; Gilmanton and Northfield, 1828-9; Great Falls, 1830 and 1832; Portsmouth, 1830-1; Concord, 1833-4; Henniker and Deering supernumerary 1835; left the Methodists 1840; Without charge, Montpelier Vermont, 1841; Supplied Albany, New York, 1841-2. – See N. F. Carter: The Native Ministry of New Hampshire, Concord, 1906, page 428.

I know i'm asking for the moon, but we need:

1. Any and all of the semi-monthly issues of Herald of the Morning except the June 15, 1877, issue. We especially need the issues for April and May.

2. We have a very limited number of contemporary reactions to their failure to be "translated" in April 1877. We would love to have more comments from outside the movement.

3. We still seek Russell's personal letters. Since I last asked, we've come up with six, one of which was very helpful. If you have one (or some), no matter how trivial the content may seem, please scan it and send it to us.

4. We still need Barbour's Spiritism booklet from 1883.

5. We need a photo of William I. Mann. We've checked with the university where his son was provost. No joy there. Anyone? Even a poor quality newspaper photo would work.

6. Letters between early Bible Students, no matter what the date are important, even if they seem trivial. Do you have any you can share?

Update on progress:

Mr. Schulz is writing the introductory essay for volume one. I'm reading through and re-researching and re-writing something he wrote about 1990 for someone else's book. This will become the last chapter of volume one. We're moving a chapter planned for volume one to volume two where it will be more appropriate; the same is true of one appendix.

I noted a discussion of Russell's supposed membership in the Masons over on another site. Just so you know, the membership list for the lodge his uncle belonged to is available. Neither C. T.'s dad nor himself is on it. We deal with all of this in an appendix in volume one.

We're hoping to have volume one in print early next year.

Photo Drama - click to view

Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, April 2, 1877