On being needy and such things

A few of you support our work by occasional contributions. You have no idea how helpful this has been. Left to himself, Bruce would never ask you for help. But I will.

We’ve located a collection of relevant – really important – booklets. These were all published in the early 1840s. We’ve been looking for these for over ten years. Usually when they are available they sell for 100-500 dollars each. So in the last ten years we’ve found one booklet by this publisher that we could afford. We have none of these.

A bookseller acquaintance told us of this lot. I’ve sold a sterling silver bowl. (I’m certain my great-great gramma doesn’t mind since she’s been dead for a long time.) Bruce sold a book signed to him by a well-known author. We’re left with $115.00 to raise in two days.

Usually when we let something go because we can’t afford it, it’s not a huge matter. This time it will be. These booklets all relate to the Millennarian movement, the source of Russell’s theology and prophetic viewpoints. We have never seen some of these, though we know they exist. Some are not listed in OCLC and are not on Worldcat.org. They’re that rare. And they are important.

It is up to you, of course, whether you can help out here or not. Time is short. Help if you can.

Contributions can be made to Bruce’s paypal. There is a contribution button on the private blog or you can use the contact email associated with this blog and I’ll direct you to the right place.

Our profoundest thanks to those who can help.

One of the pamphlets in the collection.

If you read Nelson Barbour the Millennium's Forgoten Prophet

you've met Mr. Habershon.

 

-- 

Now, let me update you on progress. We have an afterward left to write. It will tell readers what to expect from volume two. We are not including an index with volume one. The index will appear at the end of volume two. We are deleting an essay on sources. The footnotes speak for themselves. Those sources that are especially unreliable are noted in the main text.

We’re eighty percent done with the last chapter. We’ve changed the outline twice. Some things we planned on including in it will appear in a more logical place in volume two. This chapter tells the story of Barbour and Russell’s separation in a more coherent and cogent way than it’s been told before. We include details never presented. We spent more time than it was worth trying to track down some of H. B. Rice’s papers. I finally found the person who was supposed to have them only to discover that they did not really exist. Still, we have a very clear history of Rice and will tell you what his role in this affair was.

We tell this story chronologically, so we interrupt the ransom-atonement arguments with events as they happened. Key intervening events are the prophetic conference of 1878, the Feltwell controversy, and Rice’s entry into the discussion. We’ve spent this past week clarifying some paragraphs and discussing what we’re including in the last section.

 

A letter from a Photodrama operative

 

In the 1970s I used to do a slide and motion picture talk on the history of the Watch Tower Society – doing a balancing act with a slide projector, cassette tape recorder, and eventually cine projector, plus microphone and my own voice. It was somewhat fraught, but the Photodrama of Creation played a big part in this.

Initially my “slides” were actually photographs of the 40 plus postcards of the Photodrama that I had obtained via another hobby. Later, copies of slides became available. But some odd frames of film of CTR were in circulation – often stuck on cards as souvenir bookmarks. I managed to track down their source and in the early 1970s visited an elderly JW who had been a projectionist in 1914. I managed to retrieve from his attic a roll of film of CTR, and to cut a long story short, that piece of film now features in the reconstructed Photodrama videos available online. (The person who put it all together with extreme dedication has subsequently managed to complete the sequence, adding the bits that my source had sadly already cut off the roll for souvenirs)

My source, who had the initials HR, told tales of being imprisoned in a metal projection box at some places. Because most commercial film was nitrate stock – although surprisingly the Photodrama films weren’t – they were highly inflammable, and after some disasters with picture houses burning down, in the UK at least it was customary for the projectionist to be buried in a metal box. If the film caught fire – well, he could trust in the resurrection – but the audience could get out. HR told tales of working in his under garments, it was so hot in the box at times.

There were about half a dozen who were trained at the same time, he did the work for about six months, and met CTR in person at the London opening. (He also knew Jesse Hemery, Paul Johnson and others of that era, but that’s another story).

In 1974 I wrote him for some further information – asking about such matters as how many staff were needed for a full performance, how many films of Pastor Russell were shown, how the heralded synchronized sound was achieved (or not as the case may be), and how the Eureka Drama worked? I don’t have a copy of my original letter – these were pre-computer days – but I do have his reply, in very neat handwriting for someone who was then in his late eighties – and still travelled around by motorised bicycle (moped).

I am reproducing his reply here – and the questions I must have asked him initially will be fairly obvious.

Dear ....

Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to have been able to contribute something towards the picture.

It is going back nearly to the “Dark Ages” to try and recall what happened.

Now to your five questions:

1.      Floor manager, operator, sister on gramophones (2 of them), 4 to 8 sisters acting as ushers, complete with torch light – dressed in black frocks, with white frilled aprons.

No. required according to size of Hall.

Sometimes the projector operator would see all 4 parts through – other times he took his part 1,2,3, or 4, to another exhibition.

There was one part shown each night.

2.      Film of Bro Russell opened each part.

The “Hallelujah Chorus” was played just preceding, and as it stopped, the film of CTR came on screen.

3.      The synchronization of the films with the talking record was achieved by the skill of the operator – one controlled the film according to the voice and movement of CTR’s hands.

As one example in part three, there was a Frenchman (I think) singing “La Rameau” which also had to be synchronized.

If you were too quick (not understanding French) he would walk off – while song was still on!!!

The variable speed of the m/c (machine) was only the skill of the operator. Machines had a “Maltese Cross” which jerked the picture down each revolution to the next.

4.      No such thing as sound track was even heard of in those days – but music was played with films.

5.      The ‘Eureka’ was an entirely different matter, and only used, as far as I know, where no electricity was available – such as country villages – I did six of them – I cannot remember now if any music was used with these.

Re: no. 1 addition – 2 gramophones were used where it was possible to get them (on loan from local shop)

Trust this information, to the best of recollection, will fill in some details.

The films gradually wore out, particularly part 3, where Jesus in coloured robe, required more light and thus heat, so the films tended to cockle, resulting in broken sprockets – most machines would not take such film – the Guilbert machine, with a little coaxing, would pass it – hence No 3 part had to have that machine, which incidentally, I got stuck on quite a bit, latterly.

I enjoyed the work, and to this day the sound of the “Hallelujah Chorus” will quicken my pulse.

I can’t think of anything else, but a question from you may jog the memory, so write if you wish too (sic)

Best wishes, I am sure your effort will be much appreciated.

H

We're open to articles on the Photo Drama of Creation.

They must be relatively short, well documented, without speculation. Personally, I'd like to see articles on the  Photo Drama in Europe. There were separate Polish and German versions. I know little about them, though I've seen some of the alternative slides.

There are all sorts of things that can be said about it. Bruce - our fearless leader - knew one of those who worked on gathering the slides. Fun fact, huh? We have a few of the glass slides. But we'd like to see original, documented research. Probably under two thousand words.

Anyone?

The Russells and the Allegheny Cemetery (with a nod to Rosemont)

Note about dates: Most of the dates given in this article only refer to the month and the year. There are discrepancies between published genealogies of the Russell family, as well as newspaper reports and interment registers. In most cases the difference is likely between date of death and date of interment, but it is simpler just to give month and year. At this distance, it doesn’t really matter all that much.

 Entrance to the Allegheny Cemetery
 

 Grave stones for Joseph L and Ann E Russell
 

Plan of graves in Section 7 Lot 17 in the Allegheny Cemetery, Pittsburgh, PA.

Owner: James G Russell. Size of lot: 300 (square feet). Graves: 1. Mary Russell, 2. Charles T Russell, 3. James G Russell, 4. Sarah A Russell, 5. Joseph L Russell, 6. Ann E Russell, 7. Joseph L Russell Jr., 8. Lucinda H Russell, 9. Thomas B Russell.

As cities in America grew in the 19^th century, the problem of burying the dead became an issue, involving both public health and space. Town and city graveyards tended to be small, sectarian, and full. The rural cemetery or garden cemetery was a solution. It was designed to be a landscaped region that allowed the public to have parkland outside the city area, while also allowing the families of the rich to indulge in eye-catching memorial architecture. The latter seemed to work on the principle that, while you may not be able to take it with you, at least you could show the huddled masses you’d once had it! It also took the burial of the dead outside of church control.

The first rural cemetery in America was founded near Boston in 1831. Quickly others followed, including the one where most of CTR’s immediate family are buried, in Allegheny. The Allegheny model was chartered in 1844, and the grounds (originally one hundred acres of farmland) were dedicated to their new use on September 20, 1845. Other tracts of surrounding land were later purchased, so that a 1910 guide describes the cemetery as having grown to a little over 273 acres, divided into 39 sections.

Modern publications give a figure of around 300 acres, divided into 48 sections with fifteen miles of roadways. The area is carefully landscaped with well established trees, and is a haven for wildlife. Over 124,000 are buried there. Perhaps the most famous resident is Stephen Foster, the nineteenth century composer. One of the Memorials is for the child victims of the Allegheny Arsenal explosion in 1862 that is mentioned in chapter one of the current history book in progress. Forty-five of the victims were buried in Section 17 of the Allegheny cemetery with a special memorial pillar to commemorate them.

Although the cemetery location was chosen to be well outside the metropolis, inevitably the city encroached around it and then way beyond it. Today it is a very useful green space with some forestry, as well as a cemetery, in the middle of an urban area. It is located in the Lawrenceville neighbourhood of Pittsburgh, bounded by Bloomfield, Garfield and Stanton Heights. Its official address is 4734 Butler Street.

The original prospectus allowed for the purchase of individual graves or family plots. The prevailing sizes of the latter were 150, 225, 300, or 500 square feet each. A 150 square foot lot was for six graves, using wooden rough boxes only, a 225 foot lot was for eight interments and a 300 foot one ten burials.

So finally we come to the Russell family.

We know that Charles Tays Russell (CTR’s Uncle) came to Allegheny and founded a business in 1831, if his obituary is accurate. Other family members gravitated to the same area. His brother James Russell is listed in the 1840 census, and he it was who purchased the cemetery plot in the brand new Allegheny cemetery – initially one assumes due to the death of Sarah Russell. The family plot is Section 7, Plot 17.

It should be noted that the usual family tree for the Russells in circulation calls Sarah, James’ sister. There appears to be no proof of this. The burial registers for both Sarah and James make no comment on familial relationship. Had Sarah been James’ sister it would have been more logical for the patriarch, Charles Tays, to buy the family plot. But it was James who made the purchase, and it would make far more sense for him to buy the plot for a wife rather a sister; especially as he was soon to be laid to rest alongside her.

James Russell’s plans included his extended family also staying there. Forever. Literally. He purchased the 300 square foot size, designed for ten interments. As it worked out, only nine family members would eventually use the site.

Exact figures exist for the new cemetery. Although covering a large number of acres, initially the take-up was small. In the first year, 1845, from September (the first burial) to the end of the year there were only eight in total.

In 1846 there were only 29 new interments. These included Sarah Russell. One must assume that James had the pick of many potential family plots; his choice then being dictated partly by cost, but also by situation and outlook.  However, total interments were 67 that year, because there were also 38 re-burials. It was common in the early days to remove bodies from city cemeteries at the request of relatives, who wanted a more congenial final resting place for their whole family.

So by the end of 1846, a grand total of 75 burials or re-burials had taken place at the cemetery. Sarah died of consumption in the December; her burial registration number is 73.

Almost exactly one year later, in December 1847, James died. His burial registration number is 264. He was laid to rest next to Sarah in the top row of two on the plot, the one furthest from the roadway. James died of paralysis, so one assumes he suffered a fatal stroke at the age of 51. Initially wooden grave markers were the norm, but they are obviously long gone. The cemetery plan reproduced with this article suggests that there may have been more substantial grave markers for James and Sarah at one time, but if so they are also long gone.

So that made it two down, and eight places left to go in the family plot (only seven of which were eventually taken up).

By the time James died we assume that Joseph Lytle (sometimes spelled Lytel) Russell was already living in Pittsburgh, and it was his branch of the family who would use the site next. The Allegheny Cemetery charter laid down strict legal provisions for inheritance of family plots – first to children (James and Sarah do not appear to have had any) then parents, and then brothers and sisters.

In common with many in those unhealthy times, Joseph and his wife Ann Eliza were to lose three of their five children quite early on. Thomas, pictured in the January 1, 1912 WT (but not the reprints) was the first – he died of whooping cough and was buried in a row nearest the roadway in front of James and Sarah’s graves. The cemetery record states he died in August 1855 at the age of five years and three months.

Thomas B Russell had been the firstborn in 1850, and was no doubt named after his maternal uncle, Thomas Birney, who lived in Pittsburgh. He was followed by Charles Taze Russell in 1852 (both Charles and Taze being an obvious nod to his paternal uncle, Charles Tays) and then Margaret Russell in 1854. Charles and Margaret survived to adulthood of course, and were finally buried side by side, but elsewhere.

Then a young daughter named Lucinda was born. She died from scrofula (sometimes spelled scrophula), a form of tuberculosis affecting lymph nodes in the neck, in July 1858 at the age of a year and a half. Lastly, there was a young son, Joseph Lytle Jr, who died of croup at the age of six months in April 1860. The family had been living and working in Philadelphia at this point, but it was still important to the family to bring the little bodies back to the Allegheny cemetery for burial in the family plot.

For the three children, two sad little gravestones have survived, but they are very weathered and – from photographs at least - the memorial inscriptions on them are now indistinct.

Finally, after losing her three children, mother Ann Eliza died from consumption in January 1861. Her funeral took place from the home of her brother, Thomas Birney, in Pittsburgh. Her will, written just the month before, when she was no doubt very ill, lists her husband, Joseph Lytle, as “her agent in Philadelphia.” The notice of death in the Pittsburgh Gazette for January 26, 1861 calls her the wife of Joseph L Russell (of Philadelphia, PA).

Her grave stone survives, although it is worn in places. It reads:

ANN ELIZA

WIFE OF

JOSEPH L RUSSELL

DIED (indistinct) 1861

IN THE 39 YEAR OF

HER LIFE

There is an inscription at the bottom – probably taken from a scripture – but this writer is unable to decipher it from photographic evidence. If any reader can do better, please do try. You will find a photograph of the stone on the Find a Grave website.

After Ann Eliza’s death, the family plot remained unused for nearly fifteen years. During this time, CTR and his sister grew to adulthood, and CTR started his spiritual journey in earnest.

Then, in 1875, the oldest of the Russell brothers, the original Charles Tays died. His life story, such as we know it, is covered in an earlier article on this blog – The Other Charles T Russell. Charles Tays died of hepatitis in December 1875 and was buried in the family plot. The grave was positioned in the top row, next to James and Sarah, whose funerals had been 30 years before. Charles Tays’ grave stone is quite well preserved and again can be read on the Find a Grave site.

 

It reads:

IN MEMORY OF

CHARLES TAYS RUSSELL

A NATIVE OF

COUNTY DONEGAL, IRELAND

DIED

AT PITTSBURGH PA

DEC 28 1875

IN THE 70 YEAR

OF HIS AGE

Eleven years went by before the next interment. The extended Russell family who settled in Pittsburgh included an unmarried sister, Mary Russell. When Charles Tays died, he left $3000 in a trust fund for her support. By 1886 the plan had gone awry and it was necessary to dip heavily into the capital to care for her. (The transcribed legal documents can again be seen in that earlier article – The Other Charles T Russell). She died in the September of 1886 and was buried in the top row next to her brother Charles Tays. No stone seems to have been provided.

There was only one more person who would share this final resting place, CTR’s father, Joseph Lytle. Joseph had re-married (his second wife being CTR’s wife’s sister) and they had one child, Mabel, who was to live until 1961. The family moved from Pittsburgh to Florida, but Joseph Lytle then returned to Pittsburgh shortly before his death, likely so he could die there. He was buried alongside his first wife and the three children who had died before them.

Joseph’s stone reads:

FATHER

JOSEPH L RUSSELL

BORN IN IRELAND

JULY 4 1813

DIED IN ALLEGHENY

DEC 17 1897

The inscription at the bottom reads: Blessed and holy are all they who have part in the first resurrection. They shall be Kings and Priests with God.

And that was it, as far as the Allegheny cemetery plot was concerned; a total of nine interments out of a possible ten. The years went by, it became forgotten, and grass encroached over the stones lying flat on the ground; until in fairly recent times the plot was rediscovered. The memorial inscriptions for Joseph Lytle and Charles Tays are in the best condition today, but of course they are the most recent.

So why didn’t CTR end up buried here with his family in the one remaining space?

I have no way of knowing how carefully to scale the chart of graves reproduced with this article may be, but if accurate, it might appear that squeezing in another interment could be problematical. Probably more to the point, CTR was involved in founding a new cemetery.

The Rosemont, Mount Hope and Evergreen United Cemeteries were founded on land purchased from what was called the Wiebel farm in 1905. One section, the Rosemont Cemetery, was earmarked for Bible Student use. In his will, written in 1907 CTR directed that he be buried there. By the time of his death the area was simply called the United Cemeteries.

The aim had been to have a special section of cemetery for the Bethel family as well as for those who served as travelling representatives, then called Pilgrims. A 1919 convention report details plans to erect a pyramid monument in the center of the site on which all their names would be engraved on the four sides. The special Watch Tower section was planned to contain 275 burial spaces. CTR was buried at this new location in early November 1916. Notice of the pyramid’s completion was given in the St Paul Enterprise for February 10, 1920. By that time all the other surrounding cemetery land and farmhouse had been sold off, and seven others in addition to CTR had been buried there.

As it happened, this plan was quite soon abandoned. A reunion convention of those who had left the Watch Tower society held a memorial service at CTR’s gravesite in 1929 and on examining the pyramid monument for inscriptions tartly remarked in their convention report: “either the friends have not been dying or the plan has been changed.”

The remaining graves were all sold off and were since used by people unconnected with CTR’s associates.

It is not difficult to guess why this happened. For a start, there were theological problems with a pyramid monument as the 1920s wore on, but probably it was logistics more than anything that caused the change of plan. CTR’s heart was in Allegheny. The new cemetery company was founded while he still lived there. CTR lived nearly all his life there, until the move to Brooklyn in 1909. It made sense for him to be buried there, even if not with his natural family in the Allegheny cemetery. But apart from a brief switch back to Pittsburgh when J F Rutherford and others were imprisoned, Brooklyn became the focus for the Watch Tower Society after CTR’s death. The Bethel family lived in New York. The workers and officials of the Society generally had no family ties with Pittsburgh. What was the point of the great expense of shipping bodies all the way back to Pittsburgh? So another cemetery plot on Staten Island, near the radio station WBBR, became the cemetery of choice instead.

The only historical postscript is that when CTR’s sister died in 1934 the family obviously must have had a claim on the plot next to CTR. She was buried there, with no fanfare, in November 1934. Her name in death was registered as Margaretta R Land (rather than Margaret). There is no stone to mark her final resting place.

 

H. B. Rice's Last Religious Affliation was with this Church

Thomas B Russell

Thomas B Russell on the left in the picture would have been about five years old when this early photograph was taken with his younger brother, Charles Taze Russell. The picture is found in the January 1, 1912 WT, which states that CTR was three years old at the time. The picture was cropped to only show CTR in the reprint volumes.

Burial register for the Allegheny cemetery showing entry for Thomas. He died of whooping cough on August 11, 1855 at the age of 5 years and 3 months.

New to our Reseach Collection

Thomas B. Russell

Thanks to Jerome and his helper(s) for coming up with the original record of Thomas' death date. It is usually found as September 11, 1855. The original record shows that the date is really August 11.

Thomas B was C. T. Russell's older brother.

Puzzle

Several letters from or about H. B. Rice seem to come from "Leckford," California. I can't locate a Leckford, CA. Anyone solve this mystery?

Mystery solved. Its a misprint for Lockeford, California, near Stockton.

New to our research collection

American Tract Society - About 1830-40

We're trying to add a companion tract, similar to this one, to our collection too.

We need ....

We need to raise 25.00 to pay for an important tract from 1830. If you wish to donate to our research fund email me at rmdevienne @ yahoo dot com. I'll tell you how. If you read the private blog, just use the donate button.

Bruce's wife is home, but her heath is still fragile. Thanks to those who left their good wishes here or to him through his email.

R

News

Bruce's wife had a stroke today and is in the hospital. This blog may go quiet for a period.

One of our blog readers needs some help

Hi Bruce,

I am hoping you can furnish the birthdays of two individuals. They are G.H. Fisher and Menta Sturgeon. Please let me know if you have their birthdates.

Business card

(originally posted on Blog 2)

 

We're trying to date this.

Not a Watch Tower tract. But we think it's relevant. Relevance depends on the date. The tract is undated. Any ideas?

We're still working on the last chapter. Here is a "taste."

The Prophetic Conference

 

            A group of more or less prominent clergy organized a Prophetic Conference for the last two days of October and the first of November 1878. A prospectus was widely circulated stating the organizers” purpose and inviting attendance. Those promoting the conference saw the doctrine of Christ’s return as neglected, reproached:

Dear Brethren in Christ: When from any cause some vital doctrine of God”s Word has fallen into neglect or suffered contradiction and reproach, it becomes the serious duty of those who hold it, not only strongly and constantly to reaffirm it, but to seek by all means in their power to bring back the Lord’s people to its apprehension and acceptance. The precious doctrine of Christ’s second personal appearing has, we are constrained to believe, long lain under such neglect and misapprehension.

In the Word of God we find it holding a most conspicuous place. It is there strongly and constantly emphasized as a personal and imminent event, the great object of the Church’s hope, the powerful motive to holy living and watchful service, the inspiring ground of confidence amid the sorrows and sins of the present evil world, and the event that is to end the reign of Death, cast down Satan from his throne, and establish the kingdom of God on Earth. So vital, indeed, is this truth represented to be that the denial of it is pointed out as one of the conspicuous signs of apostasy of the last days. ….

Looking over the Church of God in all its branches, and listening to the clear and decisive testimony to this truth that is coming up in such volume from teachers and pastors, expositors and lay workers, evangelists and missionaries, it can but appear to us that after the long sleep of the Church, the wise are at last rising up, and trimming their lamps, in preparation for the coming of the Bridegroom.

            The conference was patterned after conferences held in the United Kingdom. Barbour commented on the conference before it took place, writing an article entitled “Prophetic Light” for the November 1878 Herald of the Morning. Few of those attending the conference read the Herald. We can safely say that almost none of them did. Of those present, we can only prove that J. A. Seiss read at least one issue. So, though he wrote it as if addressing the delegates, Barbour’s article was meant for internal consumption. He reiterated their date-based speculations:

Now, brethren, if it is truth, and facts you are after, please notice a few concerning the Jewish nation, and the time of their chastisement: facts, which if recognized, would startle the world.

The Jews have existed, as a nation, nearly four thousand years; but under two entirely distinct conditions. First, as the acknowledged favorites of Heaven, and second, as the cursed of God. The former, prior to the crucifixion; the latter, since the “veil of the temple was rent,” “and their house was left unto them desolate.”

Now we will neither lay down a premise, or make a deduction; but simply state facts which will prove that the time of Jewish dispersion is ended and that the long foretold restoration of the Jews has in fact commenced, this present year, 1878.

            The rest of the article rehearses Barbour’s “Israel’s Double” doctrine, the theory that there is a precise time correspondence between “the Jewish Dispensation” and “the Christian Dispensation.” If he intended to sway the conference, he went unheard and unheeded. The conferees” contact with Barbourite doctrine was through Russell who attended and circulated among the delegates. What should interest us is the attitude reflected in the introductory paragraphs. He presupposed that the prominent clergy who sponsored the event might not be truly interested in “the facts” and “the truth.” He had them both. They did not. They were willing to debate formally stating their premise and making deductions. He need not do that because he had the facts of scriptural fulfillment at hand. So, while the bulk of the article is rational in tone, his view of himself as the last day’s voice of God comes through clearly.

            In a later post-conference article, Barbour noted a basic agreement on the nature of the Second Advent:

The most advanced christian [sic] teachers of to-day, tell us that the coming of Christ to the “air,” where his saints are to be caught away to meet him, and his coming to the earth “with all his saints,” are not only different stages of the advent, but that these two stanges are separated by all, or, most of the time of trouble which is coming on the nations. – I believe the prophetic conference recently held in England, and also that held in N. Y. City, almost to a man, believe in more than one stage to the advent. And many of them believe the foretold “time of trouble,” is already commencing.[1]

            Russell attended the conference, engaging with delegates and promoting in a less brash way the doctrine he shared with Barbour. Evening sessions were given over to “testimony and conference on the topics of the day.”[2] The testimony period suited his purposes, and what evidence we have suggests he used it to promote his beliefs. He does not tell us the names of those with whom he discussed prophetic themes, but we know from other sources the names of two and can with high probability of success guess at several others. One of the most interesting records is found in Jenny Smith’s diary. We could not locate the original diary and it may not still exist, but Smith published key entries. We find this entry for November 1, 1878:

At Sister Clark’s. Two more interesting days have passed. This has been a special privilege. Yesterday A. M. went to Dr. Tyng’s church. Attended the convention met to discuss “The Second Coming of Christ;” was surprised to meet acquaintances from all parts of the land. Had the pleasure of meeting several with whom I have corresponded – Rev. H. L. Hastings, Dr. Charles Cullis and others. Brother Russell of Pittsburg, [sic] would have me take lunch with him. …

Afternoon. – The meeting was very interesting; Dr. Feltwell went with me to see Harriet Britton, the great missionary. Returned for evening-meeting; heard several great speakers. In the afternoon had a number of calls. Miss Stevens says she read of my restoration while in Paris, France.[3]

            Jennie Smith (1842-1924) was a railroad evangelist. Typhoid fever left her an invalid, but she felt called to evangelism. Unable to walk, she traveled in a wheeled cot, using her affliction to draw others into conversation. Her experiences led her to believe that the un-churched were often more charitable than regular attenders:

As I am compelled to travel in the baggage car on account of my cot, I have had ample opportunity to test the hearts of those men, who some think are void of feeling. I must say they are, with few exceptions, a most kindhearted and obliging set of men. Although they may resent it at first, I am satisfied they appreciate any true interest in their eternal welfare.

I have seen the time when I was so impressed I could not refrain from speaking to a man about his soul’s salvation, though I did not know but I should be cursed for it. Yet, in view of his danger, I felt fearless and lost all scruples as to my position. I looked to Jesus for strength, and before I left the car that man, with tearful eyes, thanked me as he grasped my hand, saying, “Would to God more Christians would deal with us as patiently and perseveringly.” If social and reading-rooms were established at all points where the hands who are off duty could have a pleasant lounging place of their own, scores of souls might be saved from temptation and ruin. Through conversation with such persons I have been impressed with the thought of the privations which the public demand from railroad hands, street-car drivers and conductors, livery men, firemen, policemen, and others, including domestic servants; and I fear we, as a Christian people, are not as charitable and do not feel the interest and sympathy we should for those whose occupations necessarily deprive them of Sabbath privileges.[4]

            In March 1878 she regained her ability to walk. She believed it was the result of a divine healing. In this era Russell was open to the idea that faith cures were real, and he would not have disputed this.      It is tempting to speculate on Russell’s attraction to Jennie Smith. However, we can’t go further than what she wrote in her diary. He took her to lunch. We can note, however, that there is a slight resemblance to Maria Ackley, who he married the next year.

Smith notes her association with “Dr. Feltwell.” Russell fell in with this circle and Feltwell was attracted to Barbourite theology. William Vessels Feltwell was a pastor in the Reformed Episcopal Church, a sect of that church formed in 1873 as a result of the tendency of some Episcopalians and Anglicans to move toward Catholicism.[5] Feltwell was of the organizers, leaving behind thirteen years of ministry in the Protestant Episcopal Church.[6] Russell and Feltwell discussed Barbourite doctrine, and Feltwell expressed interest. While Jennie Smith falls out of the picture, Feltwell’s interest became an incident in the Atonement controversy. Not long after the conference, he wrote to Barbour addressing the Atonement issue. Barbour extracted a paragraph, publishing it in the Herald:

I believe the original will clear up the difficulty which rests in many minds regarding this passage, [1 Peter 2:24.] and perhaps the whole subject of substitution. I am inclined to believe the popular substituting sacrifice of our dear Lord is sentimental. There certainly is no substitutionary idea in connection with the fall of the first Adam and his descendants; and I cannot discern any in the second Adam and his seed. I am much interested and instructed, in your arguments on the atonement.[7]

Russell was taken aback. It seemed that Feltwell endorsed “the new views strongly.” When he next saw Feltwell in March 1879 he raised the issue:

I was much surprised, and seeing the brother in March, I inquired; why? He informed me that the article referred to had not stated him correctly – that he had written to Bro. B. to have it corrected, and said he, “Didn't you see the correction in the March Herald?” No, I answered. Then he got me his copy. There it was – Bro. B. regrets at any error, &c, and a quotation from Bro. F's. last letter: “I am now and always have been a believer in the vicarious atonement of Christ.” This seemed all right and I know that it was possible for any one to make a mistake, when merely making an extract from another's letter, and I was rejoiced to think that the correction was so freely made.

But judge of my surprise and sorrow when upon attempting to show it to Bro. P. a few days after, I found that in my March No. a notice of Bro. Rice's paper “The Last Trump;” occupied its place – How was it in yours? We could not understand it, it seemed like double dealing – too much management for a Herald of the Millennial Morning. Alas!, I said to myself; is this the fruit of the new views of the atonement? [8]

            When Russell finally addressed this in print, Barbour politely called Feltwell a liar and admitted his complicity in furthering the lie. Barbour called Feltwell’s letter “a frank but private statement of his views.” He suggested that he should not have published it, “but as it was among the first letters which took a decided stand for the advancing truth, I did make an extract from it, without thinking of the trouble it might make between him and his church.” “Some weeks” later Feltwell wrote Barbour asking for a retraction:

He sent the second latter, informing me of the trouble in which it had involved him, and earnestly asking me to publish the second letter merely to relieve him from that difficulty. I concluded that by publishing it in the Phila. Edition, so as to reach his persecutors, would meet his supposed necessity, without doing injustice to the truth, among the general readers of the herald; and acted on that suggestion; and still believe that, under all the circumstances, I acted wisely.[9]

Barbour said he couldn’t publish the second letter in all editions without explaining all the circumstances which he was unwilling to do. Feltwell was threatened with loss of income and position, Barbour said. There seems insufficient evidence on which to form a firm conclusion. Feltwell did not present it in this light; at least Russell didn’t understand this from his conversation with Feltwell. Barbour was always the hero of his own story and never above distorting the truth to further his own ends. But we have no basis upon which to discount Barbour’s account.

Feltwell drops out of the picture here. The enduring significance of this event rests in what it reveals about how matters stood between Barbour and Russell by mid-year 1879. Russell saw Barbour as controlling and as distorting the truth. Barbour suggested that Russell made an issue out of the Feltwell incident to find “some apparent evil” in him. It was meant, Barbour wrote, to support Russell’s “boyish act in demanding the entire control of the paper, or, the alternative, another paper for the same list of subscribers.”
 

Russell left unnamed the others to whom he spoke. But after explaining where he differed from some them, he added this interesting comment:  

I knew many of these brethren and loved and honored them; but now I love and honor them more; and on points of difference, we shall doubtless come closer together, if we all remember that we are still learners; and also that we are to walk in the light, grow in grace and knowledge; and in love let such as are strong, bear the infirmities of the weak.[10] 

            Though we can say with certainty that he knew Seiss, and with strong probability that he previously met Horace Hastings, we are left to suppose on slim evidence who most of these are. But we can note that during his years with the Allegheny Bible Class he wrote to and traveled to meet many of those writing and preaching on prophecy. This extends the sphere of pre-Barbour influences, putting the lie to those who would have all of his background be Adventist.

 

 =====

Reaction to the Conference

          

            Much of the religious press was antagonistic. The New York Independent, a Congregationalist magazine, editorialized: 

Their way of considering Christ’s kingdom as visible, physical, and political is intensely Jewish and non-Christian in its character. It proves somewhere a false exegesis – that a doctrine is deduced from Scripture, which is not in harmony with the spiritual nature of the Christian system. There is no deeper truth in the Bible than this: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” Those who are now looking for such a glorious personal Advent with the succeeding political reign of Christ in Jerusalem, seem to us to dishonor Gospel dispensation.  

            The Independent’s opinion was echoed by others. What makes this and other comments interesting to us is that they are exactly the same arguments used against Barbour and Russell. The National Baptist suggested that Christians should ignore prophetic studies because they were not meant to be understood until fulfilled and because they diverted attention from social and political issues: 

We do not hold that we are to live each day as though we expected the Lord to come on that day, any more than we are to live each day as though that day would be our last. If we believed that the Lord was coming to-day, we should take very little trouble about next year’s elections, or about any future event. We believe we are each day to discharge the duties of that day. Practically, and so far as regards our future state, the hour of death, the hour of the Christian’s release, is the Coming of the Lord. This may come at any day, at any hour. And it becomes us to be in readiness for it.

            This represents a point of view Russell confronted and rejected.            

            The Interior editorialized:

This convention gives a new impulse and added respectability to a doctrinal affectation which is much more fashionable, just now, than godliness.

No doubt it is pleasant to one who loves the good things of the world – honor, fame, power, exalted rank – and who is not specially solicitous that others shall enjoy the same to “stand and wait,” as Dr. Tyng said in his address that they were doing, in the blessed hope that the Lord will suddenly come bringing all these glorious things to the, unearned, and damnation to fourteen hundred millions more who sit in the shadow of ignorance. 

            These criticisms represent a growing and fairly important rejection of millenarianism. Everything said against the conference would be asserted against Watch Tower belief and against Russell personally. 

Barbour’s Reaction 

            Barbour didn’t attend but read the published reports. He was disappointed that the conference didn’t echo his own views: 

After a careful perusal of the report of the “Prophetic Conference,” I feel dissatisfied. From the character of the speakers, and the nature of the subjects advertised, I had looked for some advanced light. From the paper on the “Times of the Gentile,” by Rev. J.[ohn] D. Duffield, I had supposed something definite would have forced itself into notice.[11]

            Barbour reasserted his belief that Gentile Times would end in 1914, moving from that on to other issues:

Everyone at that conference professes to believe that Christ will come with all his saints to the mount of Olives, [sic] at the end of the times of the Gentiles; and they profess to believe that it will be within the limits of this present living generation. And yet with all the present indications of the return of the Jews, the subject of the Times of the Gentiles, although advertised, does not appear in the reports. I do not know how the Dr. handles the subject, but I do know he could not have presented it in its fullness, without approximating to something like a definite conclusion; but the paper did not appear, nor was there one particle of advanced light by which we might presume that the advent was nearer than it was one thousand years ago.

The different phases of the advent, coming for his saints, or coming with his saints’ coming to gather his elect, or coming to the mount of Olives, after they are gathered, were all one and the same, so far as expressed by them. The signs of the times, so pregnant with the coming time of trouble, in which Daniel’s people are to be delivered, or any other indications of the coming crisis, were passed over unnoticed. There seems to have been a pre-arranged determination that no reason for apprehending the advent near should be presented. To say that it may come to-morrow, brings no reproach, but to offer any reason why it may come in our day, savors of “Millerism;” and so they cramped themselves into a nut-shell”

            These were Barbour’s pet issues, and he continued in this vein for several more paragraphs, quoting from the conference report. He sent a copy of the December Herald of the Morning to all the conference speakers, so it was to them directly that Barbour said:

The investigation of prophecy, and especially of the prophetic measurements, has a reproach associated with it which few have courage to face. And yet these prophetic measurements are a part of the “Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation.”

I am convinced your gathering at New York will, in the providence of God, bring forth good fruit, by turning the attention of thousands, to this great impending event; but a vague and dark “expectation,” such as your words are calculated to arouse, is a mere sign of the times. And to stop there, will leave you, as to the second coming, in a parallel condition to the Jewish church at the first advent; when yet notwithstanding the universal expectation, they have suffered an age of chastisement, “because they knew not the time of their visitation.”[12]

            Barbour was scolding where Russell was not. This difference between the two persisted until Barbour’s death in 1905. Barbour saw himself as the ultimate teacher. In this period Russell saw himself as a co-laborer even with those who disagreed with him. They were all learners, Russell felt. Even after he came to see himself as God’s appointed servant, Russell seemed eternally surprised when his view of truth was rejected harshly. Barbour expected it, and his personality drew it on him. It was a self-certifying view. Christians should expect rejection. They rejected his message. He was, therefore, the God-chosen messenger.

           

Ambivalence to Rejection

 

            Russell and Paton continued to associate with and support the Herald. Paton continued to preach in the Midwest. Russell sent money to Barbour. Both events are reported in the December 1878 issue of Herald of the Morning.[13]Additional funds from Russell are note in the January and February 1879 issues. Paton continued to write for the Herald; an article by him entitled “The Kingdom” appeared in the February issue as well.

 

 

            Barbour noted declining reader interest, inserting this notice in the February 1879 issue:

 

Subscribers for six months who received the first monthly paper, the July number for 1878, have now received two numbers beyond the time of their subscriptions; and as many of these have been sent by third parties, it is quite possible some of them do not wish the paper continued, hence we must drop all such names, unless we hear from them.

 

He would send the paper free to the poor, he said, and payment in postage was acceptable. He offered to send the paper free for two months to any who wished to examine it.

Russell and others noted his tendency to print letters favorable to his new views on Atonement and Resurrection. Contrary opinion existed and shows up in the articles that addressed readers’ questions. A reader asked him how he reconciled his “latest views on the resurrection with the Elijah type.” He reiterated that he hadn’t previously examined the atonement doctrine and its ramifications: “I never had any view, only a confused idea, until I studied the subject.” He provided little explanation, but observed that “there is no room for difference of opinion.”[14]

 

 

 

---

[1]               N. H. Barbour: Time Arguments, Herald of the Morning, February 1879, page 33.

[2]               The Prophetic Conference: October 30, 31, November 1, 1878. Christ’s Second Coming, New York Tribune, Extra Number 46, page 4.

[3]               Jennie Smith: From Baca to Beulah: From a Couch of Suffering to My Feet, to Exalt His Holy Name, Garrigues Brothers, Philadelphia, 1889, pages 257-258.

[4]               Jennie Smith: Valley of Baca: A Record of Triumph and Suffering, Hitchcock and Walden, Cincinnati, 1880, page 268.

[5]               Reformed Episcopal history is not relevant here, but if our readers wish to pursue this they may consult G. D. Cummin’s Primitive Episcopacy: A Return to the "Old Paths" of Scripture and the Early Church. A Sermon, Preached in Chicago, Dec. 14, 1873. At the Consecration of the Rev. Charles Edward Cheney, D.D., as a Bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church, Edward O. Jenkins, New York, 1874.

[6]               The Episcopal Schism, New York World, January 6, 1874. A. C. Guelzo: For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians, Pennsylvania State University, 1994, pages 158.

[7]               Feltwell to Barbour in Correspondence, Herald of the Morning¸ January 1879, page 23.

[8]               C. T. Russell: To Readers of the Herald of the Morning, Supplement to Zion’s Watch Tower, July 1879.

[9]               N. H. Barbour: Questions and Answers, Herald of the Morning, August 1879, page 27.

[10]             C. T. Russell: The Prophetic Conference, Herald of the Morning, December 1878, page 84.

[11]             John Duffield was a professor at Princeton University.

[12]             N. H. Barbour: Christ’s Second Coming, Herald of the Morning, December 1878, pages 84-86.

[13]             A letter from Mrs. D. B. Wolfe of Nevada, Ohio, reports Paton’s lectures there. The Letters Received column reports money sent from Russell. Both are on page 82 of that issue.

[14]             N. H. Barbour: Questions and Answers, Herald of the Morning¸ February 1879, page 39.