Search This Blog

Monday, July 7, 2014

Jones' Divorce


September 2, 1889
W. T. Bown, sworn

            I live in 32nd Ward, Pittsburgh, Pa (Mount Washington) 67 years of age last January – am a Merchandise Broker. I know the Libellant in this case (Carrie M. Jones). She is my daughter. I also know the Respondent (Albert Delmont Jones). My daughter Carrie M. Bown was married to him (Respondent) the Eighth day of January, A. D. Eighteen Hundred and Seventy Eight. (1878) They were married in the Mt. Washington Baptist Church, 32nd Ward, Pittsburgh. I was present at the marriage. The Rev. W. H. McKinney performed the marriage ceremony. They first resided in Pittsburgh after their marriage for several years (some 3 or 4 years, I believe) before moving to New York. My daughter (the Libellant) is no living with me – she has been living with me for some time – it will be 3 years net May since she came to live with me. 

W. T. Bown [Signed]


Samuel E. Bown, sworn 

           I reside in the 13th ward, am 50 years of age. I am in the Coffee and Peanut Roasting business. I know the Libellant (Carrie M. Jones) and also the Respondent (Albert D. Jones) – was present at the marriage of the Libellant and Respondent. There were married in Mount Washington Baptists Church, 32nd Ward, Pittsburgh, Pa. on January Eighth, A. D. 1878 – the Rev. W. H. McKinney performed the ceremony. After their marriage the couple resided in Pittsburgh, here, for three or four years. They then removed from Pittsburgh to New York City. Carrie M Jones, the Libellant, now lives with her Father, W. T. Bown, in the 32nd Ward, Pittsburgh, Pa. She has been living with her father I think between 2 and 3 years last past.

S. E. Bown [signed]


December 21, 1889

William H. Conley, sworn 

            I reside in Allegheny City. I know Albert D. Jones, the Respondent – I should judge I have known him about 8 or 10 years – I have had dealings with him and known him in a business way. I also know Mrs. Jones, the Libellant. I have no knowledge of Mr. Jones’s keeping some other woman besides his wife. About 2 years ago last June in New York City I saw him one night about 9 o’clock walking on 5th Avenue with a woman other than his wife – did not know who the woman was. I believe I have heard that he had got into trouble with some woman and had to pay her a large sum of money to get rid of her – am not sure that I have the letter now – I burned about a bushel of letters – but I did get from him such a letter. I cannot state what the amount was but it was a large sum he had to pay – I judge that the reason for sending this letter must have been that I had written him a dunning letter as he had dealings, with us and owed us considerable money, and that would be his excuse (that he had to pay so much money on account of this woman) for not remitting to us. This letter I spoke of was received by me from him before I saw him walking with a woman as above mentioned. I think it must have been from 6 to 9 months before that.

             I had a conversation in Albert Jones’s presence with H. B. Adams and Eugene F. Smith of New York and Thomas B. Riter of Allegheny City, Penna – there were three of us together at Mr. Jones’s offices in New York City about 2 years ago. During this conversation Mr. Adams and Mr. Smith accused Mr. Jones of keeping the woman besides his wife – They called him all kinds of vile names and he did not deny the accusation. He was accused of maintaining a house and a woman other than his wife in it in the upper end of New York, and Mr. Adams (who was in the House Furnishing business then) stated in Mr. Jones’s presence that he (Adams) had furnished the house and he (Mr. Jones) admitted the whole thing. I cannot state from recollection the precise location of the house spoken of. 

W. H. Conley [signed]

Can you help us identify Annie J. Raleigh?


June 2, 1890


Delmont Jones affirmed:
 

            I am about 58 years old; live in Mount Washington, 32nd Ward, Pittsburgh. I know Albert D. Jones, the Respondent in this suit. He is my son. I do not know a woman named Annie Raleigh, H. A. Raleigh or Annie J. Raleigh. I have no relative of that name that I know of. I never heard of such a woman – except that day before yesterday I heard Mrs. Carrie M. Jones the Libellant mention her name. MY son has no such relative either by blood or marriage that I know of.

Delmont Jones [signed]

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Tattling

We seldom become personal on this blog. I have a for fun blog where I do that, but none of us does that here. This is an exception.

Bruce would never tell you this story. I will. If he doesn't like it, he can delete the post. When I was very young I attended a meeting with Bruce and his wife (We'll call her Aunt S. here). The song I've posted below was called and the congregation sang it. B forgot his songbook. He claims a very poor memory. (as if!) But he was singing it from memory. Except his memory took him back to this songbook and these words, drawing a puzzled look from Aunt S. and me and - well - everyone around him. It was funny. Enjoy the old version.


Thursday, July 3, 2014

A sideline from history


From the Pittsburgh Press for July 29, 1921.



When the Pittsburgh Press for July 29, 1921, carried this brief news story from Chicago they missed a trick. Lemuel Hackley (sic), the attorney who was murdered in court was a native son of Allegheny. Born Lemuel Mahlon Ackley, he was actually the younger brother of Maria (Ackley) Russell, CTR’s wife.
When Maria left CTR she first went to Chicago to stay with Lemuel. He had lived in Allegheny until adulthood, working first as a reporter, before studying law and moving to Chicago in the 1880s.

He apparently did well in the law apart from getting himself murdered in court. The disgruntled police sergeant who fired the fatal shots failed to kill himself at the time, but later committed suicide by cyanide poisoning while in jail awaiting trial.

(This will probably not make it into Bruce and Rachael’s books, but I found it an interesting sideline to history).

(adapted from a brief article on blog 2)
 

Sacramento, California, Daily Union, September 17, 1868.

Part of a longer article, none of which is relevant to this history:


An Advent Camp Meeting

            This is the season of camp meetings, and our journals are daily filled with reports of these gatherings, which are taking place in all parts of the State. They are so much alike, as a general rule, and most of your readers are so familiar with their proceedings, that it is hardly worth while to describe them. But last week of a camp meeting a camp meeting of Adventists was in session near Springfield, which presented some features of interest. The attendance was very large – some thousands of people being present from near and far. The Adventists, you know, believe in the speedy second coming of Christ. The daily exercises at the camp meeting open with a love feast, somewhat similar in general character to the Methodist exercises of the same name. Then follow sermons, baptisms, etc. The proceedings of one day will give an idea of the whole meeting. On Friday Rev. Jonas Wendell, of Western New York, preached a sermon on Paul’s character and the Jews. He declared that where the Jews had one item of testimony in reference to the first coming of Christ, we, of the present day, have six signs of his second. Rev. George Storrs, of New York, was the next sermonizer. He is one of a small sect of Adventists who believe that only the righteous will rise from the dead, while the wicked die …

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Des Res no.2?



This was William Conley's place. Like the Russells' Cedar Avenue properties, it is also unoccupied at present, and the current owner has gutted the inside. So, alas, we will not be able to check the size of Conley's parlor that was used for the Memorial celebration when ZWT began. If anyone has an early photograph of the interior as it was in Conley's day, it might give an indication of how many attended the Memorial celebration in those early days.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Quick note



Remember the clipping from the Buffalo newspaper a few posts back? Further research shows the speaker to have been John B. Adamson. His visit there is noted in the February 1887 Watch Tower.

We need better information about Adamson than we have. Can you help?

Des Res?


 

These two properties are currently for sale. The owners will turn them into whatever you want for a price tag of over $400,000 per plot. Sadly, this means that the interiors have been gutted, which would have given a feel for how they were well over 100 years ago.
These are the original two houses in Cedar Avenue owned by the Russell family. Joseph L Russell and wife Emma owned the house on the left, and Charles T Russell and wife Maria owned the one on the right. Joseph L died in his property in 1897.
When Maria left CTR, she moved back into one of the houses and rented rooms out to lodgers. When CTR took the property back, Maria simply moved back in with Emma next door.
 

Sydney, Australia, Sunday Times - August 20, 1899


Monday, June 30, 2014

Where research starts ...

Much of our research outside Watch Tower publications starts with an educated guess. The newspaper clipping below is an example

Click Image for Full View.
 
Finding this article wasn't an accident. But we looked for it based on little more than a good guess. Finding a record this early is difficult, sometimes impossible. Finding this one makes me happy.

What happens next? Sometimes nothing. Sometimes this is all we find. But ... I'll look for additional record. We want to put a name to this. Who was the speaker? How long were they there? Is this mentioned in Zion's Watch Tower?

You can do this too. There are many newspaper archives on the Internet. Try phrases and names and ideas. Often you won't find anything helpful, but you may. Pass it on, even if you think we have it or think it's trivial.

Some of the most interesting discussion has come from what first seemed unimportant. We return again and again to original source material, especially Zion's Watch Tower. Details that seemed unimportant or puzzling become clear if we reassess and review. There is no secret here. Any determined person can do this. Try it.

Principles of Opperation



            I understand that those who visit our blog arrive here with differing viewpoints and experiences – and with differing views of Russell, the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses. You are entitled to your views, and, while in another context, I may debate them with you, none of our blog contributors will debate doctrine here. Our principal moderator is Dr. de Vienne. Her word is final.

            The world is often an unhappy place. We are sorry for your unhappy experiences, and we’ve had our own. In the last eighteen months two or three have come here with religious or personal issues. This blog is not the place to vent those. We can’t weigh the merits of your complaint. We weren’t witnesses to your difficulty. And this is a history blog.

            Please don’t come here believing we owe you anything more than courtesy and do not come expecting us to hurt you. If you come here expecting hurt, you will find it even if it is unintended. If you assume a belligerent attitude, you’re views and questions will find no place on this blog. I’ve instructed our resident Pixie to delete your comments and additional comments by you will not appear no matter what the content.

            If you’ve been hurt by religion, some self-analysis may be in order. You may want to revisit the issue, especially if it is an old one. If you reject what some call the authoritarian structure of your religion, you are free to do so. The three of us who edit this blog cannot address those issues. Jesus suggests you talk the issues out with the one who offended you. Even if the issue is decades old, it is not too late.

            If you don’t want to live by your religion’s standards, that is your choice. This is not the place to vent. Comments that fall into that area don’t show up here. The comments that concern me most are those from people who are suffering in some way. Because most of those are anonymous, we can do nothing to alleviate it. Explore your resources. I’m a great believer in prayer. It works. For those who are Witnesses, I recommend a now very-old Watchtower article from 1958 entitled Your Prayers Tell on You. It is, I think, the best article on prayer ever to come out of the Watchtower.

            In the past we’ve had three at least who believed themselves more knowledgeable than we are. If you are, share your knowledge. We share. You should too. Rude comments won’t show up in the comment trail. We’ve had one who believed himself a true genius saying he was in the top 99 percent nationally. Almost everyone is in the top 99 percent. Think about it. Rachael and Jerome are – to borrow a line from a very old movie – smart cookies. There is no lack of genius on this blog if that’s the measure.

            Our measure isn’t personal genius. It’s adept, accurate presentation of facts. If we sometimes plod to get the facts, that’s okay. If we depend on others to rub our nose in them, that’s good. It’s the facts that matter, not how we get to them.

            We don’t acknowledge every comment. If you come here for personal validation, we probably can’t give it to you. The Internet is a very poor place in which to seek that. We appreciate the comments we get. We moderate out about five percent of the comments because of the issues stated above.

            Those with personal issues, no matter what they are, have my deepest sympathy. As a Christian, I suggest you peer deeply and prayerfully into the issue, even though that is always a painful experience. As a fellow human, I suggest you find a confidant who will give you honest feedback. Resist blaming God for the actions of his human worshipers. If I could help you at this distance, I would. It is impracticable, and that’s not what this blog is about. If we don’t separate the blog from other issues, it loses its value.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

R. Cossar

Mentioned in reprints page 541. We need help identifying him. He might be Robert R. Cossars an immigrant from Canada, later resident in Niagara Falls, New York. He may have been born in Scotland. We have no firm proof of this. Can you help?

A note.


The section about interested clergy will move to an earlier chapter. It does not fit well here, but it does elsewhere. That chatper exists mostly as notes.

Russell Quoted from this hymn in 1882

It was song 4 in Songs of the Bride, and it appears in Watch Tower songbooks until 1928

More work in progress

This is very rough draft. Some of it will change dramatically I think. But this is where we are now. Just remember this is very rough draft and work in progress. In the past another quoted from some of our work that was equally rough that we later revised. Our corrected research appears in Separate Identity, Volume 1, their web page is in error because they failed to take seriously a similar notice. 

Herewith (at Mr. Schulz' insistence) is more of current work, even if it isn't nearly finished:


View of Religion 

            A committee report delivered to the thirtieth annual YMCA convention in October 1882 reported Zion’s Watch Tower as “of doubtful character owing to its opposition to church organization.”[1] Russell, and Storrs before him, didn’t oppose organization at the local level, but they opposed denominational organization. They saw it as “Babylon,” the whore of Revelation which they interpreted as nominal Christianity. Russell defined the True Church in the October 1882 Watch Tower.[2] His article, entitled “The Ekklesia,” addressed two issues: Barbour’s claims to divine appointment and the definition of the true church. Many falsely claimed to be the true Church of Christ: 

To-day there are many organizations claiming to be the church, and having various bonds of  union; but we wish to know, upon the authority of God’s Word, what ekklesia, body, or church, Jesus established, and what are its bonds of union; secondly, we wish to show that every Christian should belong to that church; thirdly, the injurious effects of joining the wrong ekklesia or church; and fourthly, having joined the right church, what are the results of losing our membership. 

Russell believed the true church was organized by Jesus. It was “the little company of disciples who had consecrated earthly time, talents and life a sacrifice to God.” They were “members of one society” with “laws and government, and consequently a head or recognized ruling authority.” They were united by “bonds of love and common interest.” Jesus was their head, their captain. They shared “hopes, fears, joys and sorrows, and aims … and thus they had a far more perfect union of heart than could possibly be had from a union on the basis of any man-made creed.” It was an organization “of the Spirit;” their law was love and they were under the “law of the Sprit” as “expressed in the life, actions, and words of their Lord.”

This was an idealized view of First Century Christianity. The unity of belief and sympathy Russell postulated often existed in the breach rather than in reality. He wrote about what should have been, rather than what was. Russell and Watch Tower adherents saw the True Church in contrast to denominational structure. Russell wrote:
 
Thus we see the early church organized, governed, and in perfect unity and harmony under the rulership or headship of Jesus. Contrast this church organization with what now affects to be a continuance of the same – viz.: the various denominational organizations, each of which binds its members to a mental union on the basis of some creed or dogma of its own (many of them anything but lovely) and each having its own laws.

These laws emanate from their heads, or rulers and law-givers; so it is clearly seen that these present day churches, have and recognize as heads, or directing, ruling powers over them, the ancient founders of their various creeds, each contradicting the other, while their clergy, in conferences, councils, synods and presbyteries, variously interpret and enforce the “traditions of the elders” which “make void the Word of God.” These take the place of the true head of the church – Jesus – and the true teacher and guide into all truth, the Holy Spirit. … And the whole nominal system is described in the Revelation as “Babylon” – confusion – Papal mother and Protestant daughters. Will they own this to be so? No, for the lukewarm nominal church of today believes herself to be rich and increased with goods, having need of nothing; not knowing that she is wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. (Rev. 3:17.) … 

The True church of Christ was composed of those “fully consecrated to the doing of our Father’s will, amenable only to Christ’s will and government, recognizing and obeying none other.” It is the composite of all “saints” from the beginning of “the Gospel Age … to its close.” Jesus is “the head and ruler of the entire living church, and in every assembly where two or three meet in his name he is the head, ruler, and teacher.” Jesus teaches “by using one or more of those present as exercising the qualities of the head, or teacher; by using one or more of those present as His mouthpiece in unfolding truth, strengthening faith, encouraging hope, inspiring zeal, etc.” Russell saw himself and others prominent in the movement in this role; they functioned “just as the head of your body can call upon one member to minister to another.” He cautioned prominent preachers, saying:  

If one becomes as useful an instrument as a right hand, he should take care that he aspire not to become the head. Be not puffed up; pride will paralyze and render useless. “Be not ye called Rabbi (master, teacher) for one is your master (head) even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” And let not the least member despise his office, “for if all were one member, where ere the body?” “Nay, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary”  “God hath set the members every one of them, in the body as it hath pleased him.” …. 

It is evident that if you have given up all your will, talent, time, etc., you are recognized by Jesus as a follower, and member of the ekklesia, or body of which he is the head. But says one: Must I not join some organization on earth, assent to some creed, and have my name written on earth? No; remember that Jesus is your pattern and teacher, and neither in his words nor acts will you find any authority for binding yourselves with creeds and traditions of the elders, which all tend to make the word of God of none effect, and bring you under a bondage which will hinder your growth in grace and knowledge … . But say some: If it is not proper to unite with any of the present nominal churches, would it not be well to form a visible organization of our own? Yes, this is what we have – an organization modeled after that of the early church. We think we have come back to primitive simplicity. The Lord Jesus alone is our head or lawgiver; the Holy Spirit is our interpreter and guide into truth; our names are all written in heaven; we are bound together by love and common interest. 

Do you inquire--how shall we know one another? We reply, how could we help knowing one another when the Spirit of our Master is made manifest in word and act, and manner and look? Yes, the living faith, the unfeigned love, the long-suffering meekness, the childlike simplicity coupled with the constancy and zeal of maturity, make manifest the sons of God, and we need no earthly record, for the names of all such are written in the Lamb’s book of life. 

            Members of the True Church visit the sick, finance the Lord’s work, are willing to “sacrifice reputation” and suffer “the reproach of the world and a degenerate nominal church.” Russell addressed the issue of the “disorderly” among them. Some sought organization to confront the issue. His reply was: “If we have no organization such as we see about us, how can we free ourselves from such, as the Lord requires us to do? We answer: Do just as Jesus and Paul directed.” There are, he wrote, “various degrees of advancement among the individual members, and Paul says (1 Thes. 5:14,) some are feeble-minded, comfort them; some are weak, support them; but while you should be patient toward all, warn the disorderly (those who are drifting away from the true spirit of Christ). Don’t mistake the disorderly for the weak, and comfort them; nor for the feebleminded, and support them.” He advised applying Jesus’ counsel at Matthew 18:15, 18.

Christ’s church “has its evangelists, pastors and teachers appointed and directed by the Lord.” There was no Apostolic Succession, but they were anointed by Holy Spirit to preach. He restated the General Priesthood of All Believers doctrine, writing that Jesus has “all the members of the body to preach … and it is the duty of every member of the body to exercise his office for the edification of the other members.”

Russell seldom concisely explained doctrines such as this. He believed direct statements tended to close ears. So if one finds this article prolix, it is not surprising. Put bluntly, Russell rejected creedal churches because they were populated by those who proved false to their obligations to God and brethren. The churches were worldly and not spiritual. Their creeds stifled scriptural inquiry, and, though he does not say so in this article, rejected his key doctrines. Most of this article considers mutual obligations. It is commentary on the shift in the post Civil War shift in American religion to secular interests and the adoption of misunderstood Darwinism with its idea of progress rather than the need for divine redemption. Teachers were known by their fruits and by subjection to Christ. Substituting oneself for Christ, as he believed Barbour had done, marked on as outside the fellowship. At the article’s end, he retuned to the contrast he saw between the true and the false church:

How complete is the organization of the church of Christ with its heaven-written, love-bound and Spirit-ruled membership, and how sad the error of mistaking the nominal for the real church! … It would indeed, be a dreadful calamity to lose our membership in the true church or body of Christ. And no member is out of this danger except when keeping a vigilant watch over the old nature, counted dead, lest it come to life again, and assert itself in the form of pride, selfishness, envy, evil-speaking – or what not? But if filled with love (the love that prompts to sacrifice) and clothed with humility, and under cover of the redeeming blood, we are safe in the church (body), having the assurance that it is our “Father’s good pleasure to give us the kingdom.” … 

We may have our names cast out as evil by those of the nominal church, and yet “rejoice and be exceeding glad because our names are written in heaven.” They may frown upon you and despitefully use you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, or they may seek to win you back by flattery, saying they cannot afford to lose your influence—you could do so much good by remaining among them. Oh, how necessary in this “evil day” is the faith-- That bears unmoved the world’s dread frown, Nor heeds its flattering smile; That seas of trouble cannot drown, Nor Satan’s arts beguile.”  

            Belief in the guidance by Holy Spirit is New Testament doctrine, and it was characteristic of Christian sects, especially the socially conservative, in this era. It remains so among Christians who truly believe. For instance, The Christian Workers Magazine, published by Moody Bible Institute, issued a call for world-wide prayer signed by prominent clergy, among them James Gray, Robert Russell, A. T. Robertson and R. A. Torrey.  The believed, said their joint letter, that they “were led by the Spirit of God to make this recommendation.”[3]

Early in 1883 someone asked Russell: “Would not an earnest, aggressive organization (or sect), built upon scriptural lines, be the best means of spreading and publishing the real Good Tidings? We must have fellowship and sympathy. Union is strength. It is not the skirmishers that win the battle, but the disciplined and solid battalions.” Russell suggested otherwise: 

We believe that a visible organization, and the adopting of some particular name, would tend to increase our numbers and make us appear more respectable in the estimation of the world. The natural man can see that a visibly organized body, with a definite purpose, is a thing of more or less power; therefore, they esteem the various organizations, from which we have come out, in obedience to the Master’s call. But the natural man cannot understand how a company of people, with no organization which they can see, is ever going to accomplish anything. As they look upon us, they regard us simply as a few scattered skirmishers – a “peculiar people” – with very peculiar ideas and hopes, but not worthy of special notice. 

But, though it is impossible for the natural man to see our organization … we trust that you can see that the true Church is most effectually organized, and in the best possible working order …. The Apostle Paul urges all to unity of faith and purpose (Phil. 3:15, 16 – Diaglott.) All led by the same Spirit may and do come to a knowledge of the same truth. Under our Captain, all the truly sanctified, however few or far separated in person, are closely united by the Spirit of Christ, in faith, hope and love; and, in following the Master’s command, are moving in solid battalions for the accomplishment of his purposes. … 

Recognizing this organization, which is of the Spirit, and desiring no assimilation whatever with the worldly, who cannot see or understand it, we are quite willing to bear the reproach of a peculiar people. We always refuse to be called by any other name than that of our Head – Christians – continually claiming that their can be no division among those continually led by his Spirit and example as made known through his Word. 

We disown none of our Lord’s dear children. The weakest child of the household of faith (in Christ, our Redeemer) we gladly recognize as our brother. Some, in ignorance of their privilege of the communion of saints, are mixed with the various worldly organizations, to their great detriment. Though we cannot follow them there, we gladly welcome them when they come among us. …[4] 

            Much as Campbellites had before them, Watch Tower adherents saw themselves as restored to New Testament doctrine and practice. This gave them a distinct identity. Russell addressed this in October 1883..

 



[1]               Associated as Christians: Buffalo, New York, Evening News, October 11, 1882.
[2]               C. T. Russell: The Ekklesia, Zion’s Watch Tower¸ October 1882, page 5.
[3              A Call for World-Wide Prayer, The Christian Workers Magazine¸ March 1917, page 529.
[4]               C. T. Russell: Questions and Answers, Zion’s Watch Tower, March 1883, page 6.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

We get ...

We get about 100 visits a day. It seems to me that out of that 100 visits, at least one helpful comment would show up. If you have a comment, even if it is only, "Keep up the good work!" We'd appreciate it.
R

Friday, June 27, 2014

Incomplete fragment of a rough draft

I'm posting this at Mr. Schulz' request. He is eternally hopeful that additional helpful thoughts might be forthcoming. If you have comments or thoughts, please do make them.


Two issues attached to the earliest congregations and small fellowships: Their self identity, and how outsiders identified them. Russell and many of his earliest associates came from traditions that rejected any name but Christian. They saw sectarianism as of the Devil. That left them nameless. Augustus Bergner told The New York Sun that he belonged “to a company of Christians who have no common name. We are not Second Adventists, and we are not the ‘Holiness’ or “Higher Life’ sect.”[1]

Most if not all early fellowships met in homes. When Frank Draper, an early-days evangelist spoke at Glens Falls, New York, it was in the home of W. H. Gildersleeve, who was willing to invite the public into his home.[2] There are many other examples of home-churches, but most of that history is more suitable for the third book in this series.

Individual congregations experimented with names. Before the publication of The Plan of the Ages, groups were so small that they left little record. Most of the congregational names that have come down to us are from outside the period we cover in these two volumes, but we should note some examples. The newly-formed congregation at Salem, Oregon, called themselves “The Church of the Living God,” a Biblical phrase. They met in the Women’s Christian Temperance Hall.[3] Believers in Akron, Ohio, organized regular meetings in late 1902. A representative told a reporter that they “may be called Dawn Students, or member of the Church of the Living God.” Their meetings were held in the homes of members.[4] The Cedar Rapids congregation used it too, as did W. Hope Hay, a Watch Tower representative.[5] When the Scranton, Pennsylvania, congregations was formed they used the name The Watch Tower Bible Class. Meetings were held in the home of George W. Hessler.[6] When Russell spoke there, the press release used drawn out phrasing heavy laden with adjectives: “Readers and students of the ‘Millennial Dawn’ series and all others who are interest in the subject of the pre-millennial advent.”

            In Albany, New York, Believers in the Restitution met in Fredrick J. Clapham’s home at 288 First Street. Earlier, at least one meeting was held in a “Bro. Fletcher’s home.”[7]

            Outsiders were pressed to find descriptors. When Samuel Williams, one of the organizers of the Huston, Texas, congregation preached there in 1903, The Huston Daily Post described the movement as “those of Mr. Williams’ faith,” attaching no other name. Earlier The Post described it as Millennial Dawn faith.[8] This difficulty continued for some years. In 1909 someone asked Russell: “By what name would you suggest that the local classes advertise their meetings, so as to avoid the confusion of a multiplicity of titles, such as: “Millennial Dawn, “Believers in the Atonement,” “Believers in the Precious Blood, “Bible Students,” etc.” Russell’s answer is illuminating:

It is a difficult matter to know how to advertise, not for ourselves, but difficult to keep from being misunderstood by the people. “Church of God”; “Church of the Living God”; “Church of Christ.” Any of those names would suit us very well, and we would have no objections to them, but we find that there are various denominations who have appropriated those titles, not that we think they have a right to apply them to themselves, but we would like to live in peace. It is a difficult matter to decide, and each class will have to do that for themselves.[9] 

            In his view they were to body of Christ, and while true sheep may be found within other churches, the various denominations were not of the Body of Christ. They were false religions. 

Clergymen and Lay Preachers 

            From the earliest days some clergy were attracted to the Watch Tower message. As we observed in volume one, abandoning previous affiliation was difficult because it meant giving up regular income. So we meet two classes of clergy: Those who suffered the consequences of their faith, and those who flirted with the message, believing all or part of it, but who did not become adherents. We should profile some of these. 

J. W. Ferrell
 

            Sometime near July 1883, a Baptist minister from Pittsburg, Texas was “excluded” from the church for teaching Watch Tower doctrines. Baptists in Texas were a fractious lot, inclined to oppose each other and embroiled in a test of influence and wills. The General Association meeting in Pittsburg in 1879 issued a glum report: 

The reports … showed a very discouraging condition …. Nothing had been prosperous. … There was great want of harmony and co-operation. Great complaints had been raised against the methods of the General Association as being partisan, and too much dominated by Waco University and the paper now called the Texas Baptist. A meeting had been held at Plano on July 3. and resolutions voicing these complaints and this dissatisfaction had been adopted. 

            A report made to the 1883 General Association conference suggested that Baptist churches were deeply troubled, “that associations have been divided in counsel, some rent asunder; churches have been torn by factions, and brethren alienated, and strife engendered.” [10]

            While the expulsion of this minister must be understood within the context of Baptist pugnaciousness, there were sufficient doctrinal differences between Baptists and Zion’s Watch Tower adherents to overheat any Baptist. The minister’s identity is uncertain. He is not named in The Watch Tower. There are some clues, however. The American Baptist Year-Book for 1870 names a J. W. Ferrell as pastor in Pittsburg.[11] 

Powell Samuel Westcott 

            In 1885 Powell Samuel Westcott, a Baptist deacon prominent in the Potsdam, New York, area, was also expelled for embracing Restitution doctrine “as taught by Brother C. T. Russell.”

We know more about Westcott then we know of the Baptist preacher at Pittsburg, Texas. He was born in Charlotte, Vermont, April 29, 1821. He served in the 244th New York Regiment as a non-commissioned officer from which he was honorably discharged on August 21, 1846. He was for a period a cheese, lard, and butter merchant in Boston. In the 1859 he moved to Potsdam, establishing a music business and teach vocal music at the Potsdam Normal School, now the State University of New York at Potsdam. He was for a few years superintendent of the Baptist Sunday School in Potsdam.[12] His obituary said he was “for many years an active member of the Baptist church.” It does not mention his association with Zion’s Watch Tower, but describes him as “a man of strong religious convictions and … and earnest and intelligent student of the Bible … a man of integrity, faithful in business and an upright citizen.” Westcott died January 3, 1893, and C. E. Bacom, a Baptist clergyman officiated.

We do not know where or how he encountered Zion’s Watch Tower. His story is not told in the Watch Tower, but in a letter from J. W. Brite to J. H. Paton. Brite says that he “was expelled from his denomination for heresy.” Though Brite was introduced to Paton’s writing through him, Westcott did not advocate Universalism.[13] We don’t know how enduring his association with Watch Tower belief was, but he was willing for his conviction to be expelled from the Baptist fellowship. We suspect that the Baptist funeral was held at the request of his wife Phebe Ann who seems to have not shared his beliefs.[14] 

Joseph Dunn 

Sympathetic clergy were faced with hard choices, and not all took a firm stand or openly expressed their beliefs. A Mrs. H. F. Duke of New York City wrote to Russell in September 1901 expressing her concern for “the spiritual welfare of Bro. Joseph Dunn.” She described him as “the one whom the Lord used as a helping hand to lead [her] into the light.” Russell returned her letter, saying he was “glad” that she was “solicitous for his welfare, and seeking to counsel with hand encourage him to the taking of right steps to place himself fully on the Lord’s side in every sense of the word.” He expressed some sympathy for Baptists, Disciples and Congregationalists because they were “more independent” than most. But he warned Mrs. Duke (in a subsequent letter he addresses her as “Sister Duke.”) that Dunn faced difficult decisions: 

I think Bro. Dunn, or any of us, would be justified in viewing such a congregation from the standpoint of its own claims, so that if its confession of faith were satisfactory to us, and if it agreed to give us full liberty of expression, we might consider it as one of the true congregations of the Lord. However, it would be most remarkable, under present conditions, if such a congregation should take such a stand and should maintain it for any length of time. Here will come the real test upon Bro. Dunn – whether or not he will preach the Gospel at any cost. If he does I am almost sure as that he lives that it will ere long mean a rupture between himself and the congregation and a sundering of their relationship as pastor and hearers. Indeed, I cannot see how any but spiritually minded people can accept the Gospel in the light of present truth as it is now shining. … I advice that you counsel him in every way to faithfulness, for certainly the Lord’s tests upon his minister are more crucial than upon the general average believer, and we all agree that it ought to be, for they have much advantage every way over the so-styled laity.[15] 

            Joseph Dunn was a Baptist clergyman active in Hague and in Glens Falls, New York. He was a popular preacher whose sermons were well attended, one report saying that his meetings were “very interesting” and the congregation large with nearly every seat occupied. Whatever interest in Watch Tower doctrine he had was insufficient, and he did not change his public doctrine. In April 1903 he was by unanimous vote of the congregation reappointed pastor of the Baptist Church at Hague.[16] 

William Davis Williams 

In the mid-1880s William Davis Williams (c. 1849 – 1918) was a “backwoods country” Baptist clergyman, school teacher and farmer. He described himself as “full of zeal and earnestness” traveling the back country on foot for he was “a poor country school teacher and owned no horse.” He felt responsible for others’ salvation and preached a fiery message: “I was a strong believer in the eternal torment doctrine, and the thought of sinners dying in their sins and plunged into an everlasting hell of torment, cause me to suffer with awful fear, and dread that through my neglect or carelessness some would die in their sins though lack of hearing the Word.”[17]

Some of his views conflicted with more conservative elements among the Baptist fellowship. He preached against sectarianism and maintained pleasant fellowship with people from other denominations: “I loved a good Methodist, Episcopalian or Presbyterian … and sometimes I boldly denounce those divisions as not in harmony with … Scripture. Some of our rigid brethren wanted to have me disciplined and brought to order for preaching ‘unsound doctrine,,’ but the majority stood by me.”[18]

Someone sent him a sample copy of Zion’s Watch Tower, and he found its theology agreeable until he realized its editor rejected Hell-Fire doctrine. He was shocked: 

I was delighted to find the Scriptures so beautifully opened up, giving me clearer light than any religious literature I had ever read before. But hold! What is this the editor is teaching? No hell of torment – why, Christ Himself taught that the rich man died and went to hell, and while in torment, he besought Father Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his fingers in water to cool his fiery sufferings! How can Bro. Russell thus condemn the very language of Jesus? I immediately sat down and wrote Pastor Russell a good lengthy letter, giving an account of myself and the pleasure and help I obtained from his teachings; in conclusion I denounced his error in teaching that there is no hell of torment. “By whose or what authority do you dare to make yourself wiser than Chrsit himself?” I demanded to know. 

            Russell wrote back, praising his zeal and commending his “close Scripture studies.” “Go on, Bro. Williams,” Russell wrote, “continue to feed on the pure Word, prayerfully and earnestly, and you will come to a knowledge of the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus, and not the traditions of men.” Russell ignored Williams’ demand and “never mentioned hell.” Williams’ was disappointed, concluding that, “He (Russell) can’t answer my question, therefore he ignores it.”
 
            Russell continued to send Zion’s Watch Tower and “many tracts on various subjects.” When The Plan of the Ages was published, he sent that too. Russell’s patience and message slowly altered his views:

I continued in the Baptist ministry, preaching the truth, as I saw it then, with the exception of the subject of future punishment, and I began to have my doubts on that subject; but having been reared from infancy in that horrible doctrine, it required time and strong convictions of the truth to overcome it.

Thanks to God, I was not left to grope in the darkness of Popish errors, but eventually the teaching of dear Bro. Russell convinced me beyond the least flickering doubt, and I could have shouted for joy. Oh, what a terrible burden was lifted from mind and heart! I thought that from then on I could preach the true gospel with such convincing power, until all men would receive it gladly and rejoice with me in the glad tidings of salvation which is to all people. 

            He “began to realize that the dividing time had come.” Williams tendered his resignation to the church at Sandy Creek, Florida. They were reluctant to accept it. The asked him to stay. He recalled it this way: 

“Why should you leave us?” they asked. “Is that treating us just and right? Can’t you go on and preach the Bible as you have light, without introducing subjects of doubtful decision, that only create confusion and distress?” And I would hold on awhile longer, praying all the time for light – more light. 

            Not everyone in Sandy Creek Church was happy with the compromise. “Persecution arose in the church,” he wrote. Whoever was unhappy took the matter to the Sandy Creek Baptist Association, the governing agency for Baptists in Holmes County, Florida, and Geneva County, Alabama. Two issues worked against him: What he believed though did not teach in the church and jealousy over his reputation and status within the Sandy Creek Association. A. J. Huggins, pastor of the Cerro Gordo, Florida, church led the assault. The Sandy Creek Association’s Minute Book contains the only record outside of William’s own memoir:  

Whereas, It having reached the care of this Association that Sandy Creek church did in the year 1881, call a presbytery and ordain W. D. Williams, and give him full liberty to preach the Gospel and administer all the church ordinances, said church knowing said Williams to be unsound in the Baptist faith all of which we deem to be unscriptural and disorderly. Resolved there for that she stand thus charged, November 4th, 1882.[19] 

            A committee of nine, Association clergy and prominent adherents, were chosen to examine the charge. A meeting was scheduled for Sandy Creek Church for “Saturday before the third Sunday in July 1883.”



[1]              Churchgoers Astonished: The New York Sun, August 15, 1881.
[2]           Extracts from the Bible, The Glens Falls, New York, Morning Star¸ November 11, 1897. According to the 1870 Census, William H. Gildersleeve was born in New York about 1842, or according to the 1892 New York State Census he was born near 1837. [Census record birth dates often conflict.] He seems to have been related to H. H. Gildersleeve, a cigar manufacturer in Glens Falls. In April 1884, a devastating fire broke out in rental space in a building he owned. [New York Times, April 29, 1884.] A newspaper article [Glens Falls Morning Star¸ January 22, 1895] notes him as prominent in the Methodist Episcopal Church.
[3]               All Are Welcome to Attend, Salem, Oregon, Daily Capital Journal, November 2, 1900.
[4]               Dawn Students, a New Religious Sect, In Akron, The Akron, Ohio, Daily Democrat, January 17, 1902.
[5]               Untitled notice: Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Evening Gazette, March 20, 1901.
[6]               Hessler was born in Pennsylvania about 1848. The 1880 Census tells us that he was widowed. He subsequently remarried. He was a cabinet maker, and later a contractor. Advertisements for his business appear in the Scranton Tribune [eg. October 7, 1898, and June 5, 1899 issues] advertising his remodeling, cabinet and flooring business.]
[7]               His Second Coming, The Albany, New York, Evening Journal, May 28, 1900. Various New York State Census records tell us Clapham was born in England between 1833 and 1834. He was a shoemaker. We do not know to what degree Clapham was interested in the Watch Tower message. A newspaper report from 1906 noted that he faithfully attended the Tabernacle Baptist Church “every Sunday but one in seven years.” [Albany Evening Journal, June 11, 1906.] We cannot identify Fletcher. 
[8]               Untitled notice, The Huston, Texas, Daily Post, May 29, 1901; Evangelist Sam Williams, February 22, 1903.
[9]               L. W. Jones [editor]: What Pastor Russell Said: His Answers to Hundreds of Questions, Chicago, 1917, pages 7-8.
[10]             Benjamin F. Fuller: History of Texas Baptists, Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, Tennessee, 1900, Pages 224-227.
[11]             Page 108.
[12]             Family history notes hosted on Rootsweb.
[13]             J. W. Brite: In Memoriam, The World’s Hope, February 15, 1892, page 61.
[14]             Westcott Obituary, The Potsdam, New York, Courier-Freeman, January 20, 1892.
[15]             Letter from C. T. Russell to Mrs. H. F. Duke dated October 3, 1901. Later letter mentioned above is dated November 2, 1901.
[16]             County and Vicinity New, The Glens Falls, New York Morning Star, September 26, 1903; Hague, Morning Star, April 3, 1903 and May 9, 1903; Untitled article in The Warrensburgh, New York, News, May 9, 1907.
[17]             W. D. Williams to Editor Saint Paul Enterprise found in the July 4, 1916, issue. Family Puzzlers, a genealogy paper, suggests (Nos. 585-636) that Williams was born William R. Davis, Jr. It is claimed that he was a lawyer in South Carolina sometime between 1870 and 1880, and that he killed a man. He subsequently moved to Florida changing his name to William Davis Williams. We cannot verify any of that.
[18]             W. D. Williams to Editor, Saint Paul Enterprise found in the July 4, 1916, issue. Unless otherwise noted, this material all comes from his letter.
[19]             Sandy Creek Baptist Association Minute Book as found in the Florida Baptist Historical Society Archives, Graceville, Florida.

On the Private blog ...

Jerome's new post is up. If you read the invitation only blog, you may want to migrate overthere to see it.
R