Charles Taze Russell and "The Restitution"

(Note: This is revised from an article first published in 2011. Since there has been debate over whether the theology of Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated as CTR) was mainly influenced by Adventist or Age to Come belief, it is relevant to republish it. The Restitution was the main paper for Age to Come believers in the last three decades of the 19^th century. The amount of space they gave to CTR, and the increasingly unfriendly tone of their comments as his theology developed, is a strong indication of where he had come from, and then – in their minds – deviated from. While there were obviously many influences on CTR, this writer suspects that researchers would be hard put to find a similar level of fixation in Adventist publications of the era, That alone tells its own story.

One of the key Age to Come papers of the 19^th century was The Restitution. It started life as a successor to journals edited by Benjamin Wilson (of the Emphatic Diaglott) and his nephew Thomas Wilson. The title Restitution ran from 1870 to 1926. 

It originally represented scattered autonomous groups that used terms like Abrahamic Faith, One Faith, Age to Come, Blessed Hope and Church of God, and originally allowed a wide range of views, as well as debating with what one writer called “half brethren” (July 28, 1880, page 2) such as Adventists and Christadelphians. Regular hot topics included the Second Advent, the resurrection, Jesus’ pre-human existence, a personal Devil, and what current events with literal Israel might mark the close of the Gentile Times.

Contributors in the 1870s included familiar names such as George Storrs and particularly George Stetson. Between 1876-1878 Stetson probably wrote more for The Restitution than for Adventist journals like the Times and Crisis.

We know that CTR associated with Storrs and Stetson, and also attended meetings with G D Clowes, who is listed preaching at Quincy Hall, Allegheny in the Restitution’s Church Directory in its issue for November 5, 1874. When George Storrs visited what he called a “little group in Pittsburgh” in the mid-1870s, he met both Clowes and Joseph Lytle Russell, CTR’s father. (See for example, Storrs’ Bible Examiner for November 1875, where both G D Clowes and J L Russell write to Storrs about the same meetings). Although CTR is not mentioned here, he obviously associated with Clowes because ZWT for March 1889 carries an obituary where CTR refers to “our dear Brother Clowes” (see reprints page 1110).

So when CTR began his own publishing ministry, The Restitution was an obvious place to send his material.

This article is going to look at CTR’s connections with The Restitution over around twenty years. During this time, in addition to his own periodical, CTR published five main works, Three Worlds, Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, Food for Thinking Christians, The Divine Plan of the Ages, and The Time is at Hand. All were featured in The Restitution, and in a sense, they illustrate how the relationship between CTR and this One Faith group deteriorated as the years went by.

THREE WORLDS

An advertisement for Three Worlds is found in The Restitution for May 30, 1877, on page 3.

Three silhouetted globes surround the title Three Worlds. It may well have been a paid advertisement, and it would be interesting to discover which other papers also printed it. It gives the publisher as C T Russell, Rochester, NY. The by-line reads, “should be in the hands of every Bible student.” No actual review has been found in surviving issues of The Restitution.

Nelson Barbour of course was the main author of Three Worlds, CTR’s role here was as publisher.

OBJECT AND MANNER OF OUR LORD’S RETURN

The Restitution for February 27, 1878 on page 2 made the following announcement: “The Restitution supplement, as was noticed last week, was furnished by the writer C T Russell, to the readers of our paper, at his own expense both for the printing and mailing.” This illustrated that CTR, as a successful businessman, had one advantage over many others – he could afford to send out material at his own expense both for the printing and the mailing. By contrast, The Restitution was always concerned about lack of funds and asking for donations. It is interesting to note that CTR chose this journal for the purpose.

The actual main review by The Restitution was in the February 20, 1878 issue of the paper, but unfortunately this issue does not appear to have survived. However, George Storrs in his Bible Examiner for March 1878, page 167, quotes briefly from it. Storrs own comment about CTR is revealing: “The author is one of my very dear friends, and is a sincere lover of truth. I have not the slightest doubt of his stern integrity...his sacrifice of time and money shows his faith.” However, Storrs cannot accept the second presence concept and that it had already happened, and quotes approvingly from the Restitution review in support of this.

The original review appears to have had a rather condescending tone, and this is continued in the paper we do have – the February 27, 1878 issue. After naming CTR as the author, it rather magnanimously states “we do not wish to prejudice our readers as it is a present to them which has been quite an expense to the writer.” However, readers must “prove all things” and the reviewer certainly had different views on resurrection and the Second Advent. Still “the ‘fair chance; part of the supplement will probably please some of our readers.”

When others had time to assimilate its contents, they were not prepared to be so charitable. In The Restitution for June 26, 1878 one Restitution stalwart, J. B. Cook, had read it through thoroughly and did not like it one bit.

Cook’s review took center stage on the front page – The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return by C.T. Russell, noticed by J.B.Cook.

Cook starts by saying the pamphlet had been circulated both directly and indirectly and he received his copy with Herald of the Morning. The suggestion that Christ’s return had already taken place invisibly did not sit at all well with Cook. And as for the “second chance” gospel from H. Dunn, this was “another gospel.” Cook’s review is peppered with expressions like – “delusive - utterly fallacious - the phantom of an excited brain...” He concludes his attack with the words: “It is in deep sorrow for them that I write. Brother R is spending his money for that which is not bread, and the brethren are scattered by uncertain sounds, yet I rejoice. ‘The Lord knoweth them that are his.’ Amen. ‘The half has not been told’ to these brethren, but adieu.”

There is a hint of theatrical flourish in the final “adieu” with perhaps a suggestion of 1 John 2 v.19 about it – “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort.” (NWT)

FOOD FOR THINKING CHRISTIANS

CTR’s next publication for mass distribution was the 160 page pamphlet Food for Thinking Christians. Ultimately, over one million were circulated. This could hardly be ignored by The Restitution, although they really tried.

It was general policy to include cuttings from exchanged journals as fillers, and the November 2, 1881 issue of The Restitution, page 2, quoted from a letter J. C. Sunderlin sent to Zion’s Watch Tower from London. Sunderlin gives a little homily on running the Christian race, prompted by an engraving seen in a Fleet Street window. (The original is found in Zion’s Watch Tower for October-November 1881, reprints page 292.)

Sunderlin’s whole point in being in London was to organize the distribution of Food for Thinking Christians, but you would never know that from The Restitution. One wonders why they even quoted what they did.

The silence about Food continued for a year or two, by which time many Age to Come groups were familiar with the publication and it could no longer be ignored. The June 13, 1883 Restitution finally devoted four long columns on its back page to the problem, in the article A Brief Review by regular writer Wiley Jones. In a critical and not particularly brief review, Jones studiously managed to avoid mentioning either the name of the book, the publisher, or the author. He even makes the point that “the name of the writer does not appear on the title-page” – which was true but the implication appears deliberately misleading. All Jones would admit to was that “a pamphlet of 160 pages, published in 1881...has been handed to me with a request that I would say something against its errors.”

Wiley Jones obligingly referred to specific page numbers as he presented his criticism. His pen was not quite as poisonous in tone as J.B. Cook’s, but his view was much the same. The idea of the “second chance” for many dead did not appeal, and the chronological speculations on the timing of an invisible presence and the start of the resurrection were definitely not something for Restitution readers. By his amnesic approach to title and author Jones no doubt hoped to prevent further readers checking it out for themselves, even if just out of curiosity. But those who had seen the Food booklet would have no doubt what was being criticized.

THE DIVINE PLAN OF THE AGES

CTR’s next major work, and ultimately the one that received the widest distribution of all was the first volume of Millennial Dawn, entitled The Divine Plan of the Ages.

CTR’s Divine Plan was widely reviewed. J B Rotherham for example, in The Rainbow for December 1886 was to give it over nine pages.

The Restitution regularly quoted from The Rainbow, and no doubt some of its readers subscribed. And these journals had other journals in common. The writing was on the Age to Come wall - you cannot avoid mentioning a book that everyone else will mention. So The Restitution’s own review appeared on October 13, 1886.

And here we hit a problem. The extant Restitution file was put together from several church collections in the 1980s and unfortunately the poor quality paper used, along with imperfect storage conditions over a century means they are incomplete. Frustratingly a key chunk of the Restitution’s review – what THEY actually thought about CTR’s book is missing. The main section that survives is quotes from other reviewers. As such these are secondary sources – where you have to take on trust that they have been quoted correctly and in context. However, in reviewing CTR’s links with The Restitution, it does seem worthwhile to document here that they did, in fact, review The Divine Plan of the Ages.

What survives of their review is reproduced in full below:

 “Millennial Dawn – The Divine Plan of the Ages, by Charles T. Russell – (Pittsburgh: Zion’s Watch Tower).  The Inter Ocean has before made mention of this work. It is the first of a series of volumes, each complete in itself, and designed to expound and make clear “the plan of the ages” in the salvation of man. It is strong writing, showing much research and excellent arrangement and method in its treatment of its subjects. Upon the opening pages is a chart marked “the chart of the ages,” which divides the periods into three dispensations. First to the flood – 1656 years; second includes the Jewish or gospel age, and third, yet to be fulfilled, the millennial age under the reign of Christ. “For this end Christ died and lived again that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.” There will doubtless be many exceptions taken to the theology of the writing, but none will doubt the honesty or earnestness, or the intended devotion to truth of the author. Christian readers may find teachings in the book to combat, but they will find much more to commend. From a scholarly standpoint the book will be marked as one of merited literary excellence.”

On the contrary the New York Independent says: - “Millennial Dawn, Volume 1, The Plan of the Ages, throws no light on our mind, and only adds to the old perplexities. It is hard to classify either the book or the author. He is a fifth monarchy man, and talks in a wild and dangerously anarchic way of the authority of governments and of social order. He seems to belong to the wing of the Adventists, known as “Sleepers” on account of their belief that all men, good and bad, sleep in Jesus until their “restitution” at the pre-millennial coming of Christ. At all events, he believes in the restitution at the second and pre-millennial advent of the entire race to an earthly life under the reign of Christ, and with Jerusalem as the world’s capital. The mild reign of the Prince of Peace hardens in his hands to a “rule of iron,” which, with evident relish of the anticipation, he asserts will not be at all to the liking of a very considerable portion of the 142,000,000,000 of the restored dead. So far as we can disentangle the confusion of the book, it is a ludicrous mixture of restorationism, pre-millennialism of the more or less orthodox type, and a large portion of adventism of a kind which we must leave to those who believe in it to say whether it is orthodox or heretical. To us it falls into the large but simple class of well-meant fooleries.”

Thus our readers will see how the “doctors disagree.” While there is no paper that comes to our office that we more highly esteem than the Independent, we think the literary reviewer, who wrote the above critique, has been too caustic in some of his expressions, and somewhat unfortunate in a few of his leading objections; inasmuch as these very objections seem to conflict as much with positive Scripture language as with statements contained in the book reviewed. See Ps ii. 9; Rev. ii. 26,27.

Human destiny is a problem of immensely solemn importance. Ontology, Soteriology, Eschatology, - the doctrines of Existence, of Salvation, of Last-Things – are the irrepressible questions forcing themselves upon the attention of all the thoughtful in this age of critical investigation. It has become apparent to many theologians – though painfully so in many instances – that the old creeds are about so many concentrated formularies of extravagant error on eternal retribution. To speak for ourselves, we like some chapters of this work. Of other chapters we must say that the themes discussed are open questions. To those...

(at this tantalizing point nine lines are missing, and then the last four lines are incomplete)

....woman (?) what.....saved, and obtain....of glory that fadeth not away.

(end of review)

It would be nice if – somewhere - a copy with the complete review could be found.

THE TIME IS AT HAND

The generally hostile reception to CTR’s work received a slight respite when volume 2 of the Millennial Dawn series, The Time is at Hand, was released. It was given a kindly review by A J Eychaner in The Restitution for February 4, 1891. Eychaner was a bit of a maverick in Age to Come circles. His review disputed aspects of chronology – “I wish in this paper simply to call attention to an error in the count of Bro. Russell, which I think is fatal to his whole time argument.” However, his tone is quite friendly. He calls CTR “Brother” and ends with “Submitted in all charity.”

However, by The Restitution for December 12, 1894, comments on Volume 2 were far more vitriolic. CTR has been “blinded by his own invention...we squarely charge the author of Millennial Dawn with setting aside the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and representing his as deceiving the apostles by creating a body and clothing for that purpose. A man who would represent him in whose mouth was no guile, as capable of such abominable trickery in order to sustain his own, or some borrowed subterfuge, ought to be closed watched...All this folly grows out of want of faith in that great and glorious truth – justification by faith.”

What had probably not helped the writer’s blood pressure was the previous issue for December 5, 1894, detailing how a Bible Student had been giving out copies of the Old Theology Tract no. 21 Do You Know outside their place of worship. Restitution readers were being targeted! In the words of the writer, “evidently the Christ Mr Russell expects to reign with, never died for him....we admit there is a fraud, and as between the Lord Jesus and Mr. Russell, we decide it is the latter.”

Looking back over these reviews one can see the distance growing between the Age to Come people and the fledgling Bible Student movement – although any attacks on conditional immortality would likely provoke a mutually defensive position.

The very last straw probably came in 1902. In that year it must have been extremely galling for the Restitution office, who had stocked Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott for decades, when CTR obtained the plates and took over the role of publisher.

If their new people wanted a Diaglott, or if older members wished to replace one, now they had to go to Zion’s Watch Tower. This probably meant they would read a copy of Zion’s Watch Tower, since a sample subscription went with every copy. Horror of horrors! They might even choose to become Bible Students instead.

1874-75 Allegheny-Pittsburgh – Adventist or Age to Come? The case of George Storrs and Elder Owen

This article was first posted back in 2011 and then reposted twice thereafter. When Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR) dropped into a “dusty dingy hall” just around the corner from his store in 1869 and heard Jonas Wendell speak, it really was the start of something. Most sources describe the meetings as Adventist (Advent Christian Church). However, the background for much of CTR’s developing theology would be One Faith/Age to Come. This is dealt with in some detail in Separate Identity volume 1 by Bruce Schulz and Rachael de Vienne. In fact, the Allegheny meetings accommodated a wide assortment of views as was true for many gatherings in that era. This article (now slightly expanded) examines how they evolved in the 1870s. CTR also wrote about his own independent Bible study activities which no doubt overlapped in these early days.

Illustrated above are George Stetson’s meetings at Quincy Hall, Allegheny, as reported for the Advent Christian Church in The Advent Christian Times for November 11, 1873, page 112. Then there are meetings held by George Clowes at the same location one year later. This time they were listed in The Restitution paper (Age to Come/One Faith) on November 5, 1874, page 3.

In the early 1870s the Allegheny meetings at Quincy Hall had an eclectic mix. In the early days Advent Christians and Age to Come believers would often meet together. They were united on their keen interest in the return of Christ and conditional immortality, while generally divided over such subjects as the destiny of natural Israel, how many would benefit from future probation through the resurrection, which key events yet to happen were timed for the start or the end of the millennium, and the advisability (or otherwise) of date setting.

As long as everyone remains tolerant and unofficial and generally disorganised the situation could continue. But while Age to Come believers of the 1870s were independent groups who were generally averse to organization, the Second Adventists were increasingly anxious for recognition as an established religion. This required an official statement of belief covering not just vague generalities but specifics.  As George Storrs would put it, writing in Bible Examiner for June 1876, page 263, about his distaste for Advent Conferences, “I have seen this process of organizing conferences, especially, with deep sorrow. Next come “Resolutions”, theory of course, at first; but presently dictatorial, next penal, excluding everyone from their body who presumes to preach and teach what the majority of their body do not wish to have preached among them.”

The logical outcome from this was described in Bible Examiner (hereafter abbreviated to BE) for October 1877, page 52, where Elder S W Bishop quotes from a resolution passed at the last session of The Advent Christian Association, to the effect that “appointments to preach shall not be passed in their organ, The World’s Crisis, for anyone who believes...the following doctrines...viz...age to come.” Bishop relates tales of those preaching future probation being forced out of churches, and generously peppers his description of the Advent Christian Church with expressions like “unmitigated bigotry” and “daughters of Rome.”

In spite of the drift from fellowship to disfellowship, some individuals still managed to straddle the divide through the 1870s. George Stetson was a case in point. Ordained by the Advent Christian Church they claimed him as one of their own, and published his obituary in The World’s Crisis. Stetson wrote many articles for the Crisis and some of his preaching activities are in its pages. But in the last few years of his life he wrote more articles for The Restitution, and his meetings in Edinboro were regularly announced there.

As noted above, Stetson’s 1873 meetings at Quincy Hall in Allegheny were billed as Advent Christian. The local man, George Clowes, had also been claimed as Advent Christian (see for example Jonas Wendell’s letter in The World’s Crisis for December 27, 1871 where Clowes, recently expelled from the Methodists, was appointed as undershepherd of the (Advent) church in Pittsburgh. But as also noted above, by 1874, Clowes’ ministry at Quincy Hall was now claimed as One Faith, Age to Come.

So which was it to be? Advent Christian or Age to Come?

While the group associated with the Russell family no doubt retained its independence, allowing the majority to link up with Nelson Barbour later, if you had to attach a label, Age to Come believers in future probation (rather than Advent Christian) would be it.

This article will present three lines of evidence to establish this. First, the way their meetings were advertised in the religious press, and then two key visitors who had their message accepted by the group.

The first point we have already covered. The November 1874 meetings where Elder Clowes preached were advertised in the Restitution Church Directory as Age to Come. As we will see later, the meetings Clowes attended were also attended by Joseph Lytle Russell, William H Conley, and CTR. When Clowes died in 1889 Zion’s Watch Tower published an obituary for him in the March issue (reprints 1110). In response to a tribute from Joseph Lytel, CTR wrote:

“On Jan’y 25th our dear Brother Clowes, with whom some of our readers were acquainted, having heard him preach the word of truth at various points near Pittsburgh, passed away full of triumphant faith and glorious hope. “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from hencefotih. Yea, saith the spirit, they shall rest from their labors, but their works follow with them.” Previously, in ZWT for May 1886, Clowes had given the opening prayer at that year's Watch Tower Memorial celebration in Pittsburgh (see reprints page 851). 

Second and third, we have two known visitors to the group.

The first was George Storrs himself, who spent two Sundays with them in May 1874 and wrote quite a detailed account of his experiences. Before we try and pigeon-hole Storrs’ theology, it would be useful to outline what happened both before, during and after his visit to Pittsburgh.

Shortly after his magazine became a monthly again, Storrs offered his services. As outlined in his March 1874 editorial on page 162, Storrs offered to preach on the subject of Vindication of the Divine Character and Government to any group who would welcome him and offer a convenient Hall. The next issue, April 1874, page 224, noted that C T Russell and Son had been in touch, as had George Stetson in Edinboro. Another regular Pittsburgh correspondent was C W Buvinger, M.D. (for example, see BE March 1874, page 192 and February 1877, page 158). Whoever gave the invitation, it was given promptly and Storrs responded promptly. In the May 1874 BE, page 226, Storrs announced that he would be in Pittsburgh on the first and second Sundays of that month to speak on The Divine Character and Government, details of venue to be announced in the local press.

From the Pittsburgh Gazette for May 2, 1874.

The announcement noted that “The nature of the subject and the speaker’s ability should call out a large audience.”

The following week the paper contained a further advertisement (from the Pittsburgh Gazette for May 9, 1874):

It noted that “As Mr Storrs intends starting for home on Monday this may be for many a last opportunity of hearing him.”

Storrs wrote up the experience in the June 1874 issue of Bible Examiner. On page 259, his editorial said that in Pittsburgh he had “found there a small but noble band of friends who upheld with the full hearts the truths advocated by himself. Among them is a preacher who was formerly of the Methodists, but is now firmly settled in the character of the Divine Government as set forth in this periodical.” The preacher in question would appear to be Elder George D Clowes.

Storrs reproduced a newspaper review from The Pittsburgh Leader on his talk at the Library Hall. It mentioned a large audience, although a few left shortly after he began speaking. In his talk Storrs referred to “the ages to come” (rather than “age to come”) and stressed that “all men have will have an opportunity, if not in this life, in another one...Some may call me Universalist. I am in one sense; I believe that a universal opportunity will be accorded to every son and daughter of Adam.”

Storrs ended his review by thanking the friends in Pittsburgh for their generous support sustaining him and sending him on his way.

Storrs’ visit had an immediate impact. In the same June 1874 issue of BE on page 288, under the heading Parcels Sent up to May 25 are several well-known names: Wm H Conley (2 parcels), G D Clowes Snr. and  J L Russell and Son (by Express). Sandwiched between the names of Clowes and Russell in the list is a B F Land. It is only conjecture on this writer’s part, but CTR’s sister Margaret, who was about twenty years old at this time, was to marry a Benjamin Land. They had their first child c. 1876. One wonders when and where they met. 

Missing of course from this list of eager recipients of Storrs’ materials is CTR – other than the letterhead of J L Russell and Son. However, the very next issue of BE for July 1874, page 320, under Letters Received up to June 25, lists C T Russell.

So key characters were all in place when Storrs’ visited in May 1874 and preached about the Ages to Come, and when the Restitution advertised Allegheny meetings conducted by Clowes as One Faith in November 1874.

In the December 1874 BE, page 66, a belated letter from Joseph Lytel Russell to Storrs was published about the May meeting, apologising for the delay and expressing Joseph’s appreciation for it. Storrs’ responded by saying “Brother Russell is one of our elder brethren, with whom I formed a most agreeable acquaintance while in Pittsburgh last May, and I think of him only to love and respect him.”

This suggests that Storrs and Joseph Lytle only met in the flesh for the first time at those meetings in May 1874. And there is no mention of CTR in the correspondence, or in Storrs’ review of his visit back in the June BE. However, assuming CTR was actually there and not away on business in early May, Storrs would naturally relate more to those nearer his own age.

So George Storrs was a welcomed speaker at Pittsburgh, with whom some at least continued in warm fellowship afterwards.

So, returning to our main point, what does this tell us about the leaning of the group he visited?

Was Storrs Age to Come or Advent Christian?

Storrs would probably have denied that he was either.  However, his sympathies certainly lay in one direction.

Storrs was fiercely independent, and had left religious groups more than once already on matters of principle. One of the founders of the Life and Advent Union in 1863, he left that body and restarted Bible Examiner in 1871, after accepting future probation with an inclusiveness that prompted others to accuse him of being universalist. As noted in the review of Storrs’ speech at Pittsburgh, his standard retort would be that he did not believe in universal salvation, but rather universal opportunity.

Future probation had been a hot potato for both Age to Come believers and Adventists, with widely differing views within each group. But in the 1870s the Restitution newspaper at least allowed some debate on what friend and foe would variously label as the One Chance, Second Chance, Better Chance, Fair Chance choice of scenario in God’s Divine Plan.

Storrs wrote a number of articles for the Restitution on this subject – for examples, see December 9, 1874 (Christ Gave Himself a Ransom for All), December 23, 1874 (Justice and Love) and August 24, 1875 (There is a Flaw). These were part of an ongoing debate, where some readers accepted the general outline of Storrs’ views. For example, see the letter from John Foore, published in the Restitution for October 3, 1877, where Foore writes, “I still get The Restitution, and like it very much; but should like it much better if it could be opened for the advanced views such as the blessing of all nations and all kindreds in the age to come.” No doubt Foore, and others of like mind, would slip this “advanced view” into their sermons.

Storrs’ journal quoted approvingly from The Restitution on a number of occasions; for example see Nov 1874, page 46, August 1877, page 238, March 1878, page 167 (a gentle critique of CTR’s Object and Manner) and August 1878, page 327.

Both BE and The Restitution related the preaching activities of people like the already mentioned John Foore and his sometime companion John S Lawver. (The latter was later mentioned in ZWT July 1882, reprints page 367). When a begging letter was sent to “Dear Brethren of the Abrahamic Faith” (April 1874, page 194) Storrs printed it, and sent the writer a parcel.  Even when disagreeing with the Restitution he still addressed them as “dear fellow-laborers” and beseeched them to give greater weight to his views (BE January 1876, page 103).

So Age to Come groups would generally feel kindly towards Storrs. When illness took hold in 1879, the Restitution published news about Storrs’ condition quite regularly expressing a genuine concern. (See for example Restitution for June 11, July 30, and November 5, 1879). When he died he was described as “late lamented” (March 10, 1880) and “highly venerated” (April 7, 1880) in its pages.

So it would be logical for an independent Age to Come group like the one in Pittsburgh to welcome Storrs as a speaker.

No such rapport can be found between Storrs and the Advent Christian Church throughout the 1870s. One can look in vain for kind words about them in BE.

Instead, here are a few comments directly from Storrs himself about the Advent Christian Church and its organs like The World’s Crisis: “Poor old Rome has some very foolish children...I have nothing but pity for such ...out of their own mouths they are condemned” (March 1875) –“the Lord only can restore a diseased mind” (March 1876) –“ the synagogue of Adventists with the spirit of the ancient Pharasees” (December 1876) – “the same spirit crucified the Lord Jesus” (January 1877) – “God dishonouring theories” (October 1877) – “perversions of the word of God” (March 1878) – “I leave them with their own master” (July 1878) and on an article in The World’s Crisis – “very close to blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” (October 1877).

Some of Storrs’ correspondents were almost apoplectic when mentioning the Advent Christian Church, and their comments were printed in BE unchallenged. In addition to Elder Bishop’s “unmitigated bigotry” and “daughters of Rome” salvos (noted above) we have such epithets as – “covenant breakers” (June 1874) – “appalling doctrine” (July 1875) – “most sectarian body...ever found” (April 1876) – “bigoted and proscriptive...they sustain wicked and unscrupulous people” (May 1876) – “(making others) subject to the most inveterate malice and hatred” (April 1876) – as bigoted and sectarian as any other ‘ists’” (September 1876).

Correspondents sent in material on the assumption that Storrs did not receive The World’s Crisis (for example see March 1878 BE, page 173), and Storrs himself gave a succinct response to one correspondent in September 1874 BE, page 380: “I never see the A(dvent) C(Christian) Times!”

                                                                                               

In a quieter moment, Storrs summed up his views of both Adventists and Age to Come believers in an article published in July 1876 BE, page 298, entitled Adventist View in Error on the End of Probation. He stated “these are painful dilemmas for humane and conscientious Adventists...it makes them secretly hope...that the Age to Come advocates are right.” Then, writing about the Age to Come believer, “as he believes in the restoration of Israel and the conversion of them and the Gentile nations, and allows both salvation and probation for such beyond the second advent, he does not burn up the promises of God before they can be fulfilled, like the Adventist.”

Reading all the above, I think we can safely assume that, had the Allegheny-Pittsburgh group been staunch Advent Christian, there is no way George Storrs would have been on their guest list!

So we have two lines of evidence as to the leanings of the Allegheny-Pittsburgh group in 1874-75 – first, how they were advertised in the religious press and second – a point we have labored – how a maverick like Storrs was welcomed.

The third line of evidence is another visitor they had – this time in 1875. And here we come to the interesting case of Elder E Owen.

The November 1875 BE contains a trove of familiar names. Under Letters Received on page 64, Storrs notes two from CTR and one from W H Conley. But a little earlier in this issue Storrs published the contents of two other letters, one from Elder G D Clowes of Pittsburgh on page 61 and one from J L Russell of Pittsburgh on page 62.

Both letters expressed support for Storrs’ labours and showed clearly that Clowes and Joseph Lytel were still attending the same meetings and remained in tune with Storrs’ theology. They also give a clue as to the continuing character of those meetings. Clowes (still addressed as Elder Clowes) writes “Brother Owen is labouring with us”. Joseph Lytel gives a little more detail: “Brother E Owens (sic) of Portsmouth N.H. has been with us on a visit. We were very much pleased with him. I think he is truly a servant of the Lord’s, sent to preach the gospel.”

Elder E Owen (like George Clowes before him) had been claimed as Advent Christian a few years before. He is listed in the World’s Crisis’ speaking lists for November and December 1871, including his home city of Portsmouth, N.H. (The same listing has a certain Nelson Barbour preaching in Wakefield, Mass. about the second coming due to occur in 1873). Owen also had a poem published in the Crisis for January 14, 1874 entitled “We Want a Pastor”. But by 1875, if not before, he appears to have come to a parting of the ways.

Storrs published two of his poems in BE in February and December 1875 as well as several letters. The key one was in the issue for April 1874 page 216, where, to use a modern expression, Owen has a bit of a rant.

“When so called “men of God” advise congregations to exclude from their houses, and churches, all who believe in the “age to come”, (as was reverently done in this place), I feel to say, God have mercy upon such leaders of the people: for if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. I am fully satisfied the Advent people are growing more and more contracted in sentiment, more and more adverse to investigation; and I am fully aware that spiritual death and declension is inevitable. May God preserve me and as many as can be preserved from imbibing so unfruitful a frame of mind.”

Elder Owen had strong feelings over the increasing gulf between Adventists and Age to Come believers and how he had personally fared in the controversy. Storrs was more than happy to print these views; as shown by his comments above, they obviously mirrored his own.

The next year, Owen wrote again in similar vein. The situation as he saw it had not improved. The August 1875 BE on page 330 contains another polemic from him: “The war wages fiercely. Misrepresentation, legislation, disfellowship and kindred arguments are brought vigorously to bear...In our State the spirit of intolerance in rampant, some men refusing to labor with those who entertain the faith of “Ages to Come.” Poor men...It requires strong decision and moral courage to face the tide.” In Storrs’ response, he writes: “if those are the best (arguments) they can furnish their triumph will be short.”

On the issue of Advent Christians and Age to Come believers, Owen clearly eschewed any woolly ecumenical feelings and nailed his colors firmly to the wall. In this he had Storrs’ public support. So when George Clowes and Joseph Lytle welcomed Owen with open arms in late 1875 and spoke appreciatively of his ministry, it is obvious which side of the mounting divide they continued to support.

So while the Allegheny-Pittsburgh group connected with Joseph Lytle Russell, George D Clowes, William H Conley and CTR may have been independent, its natural home was in the Age to Come family.

And then events took an unexpected turn. Charles Taze Russell met Nelson Barbour.

How Old was Rose Ball?

Note: An article 'Rose and Charles Ball' posted on June 2, 2020, presents new research that confirms Rose's age when joining the Russell household, and replaces this one so please read. Although the suggestion below is now discounted, there is still some material of value in the article; hence it has not been deleted.

N

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melbourne Argus, November 24, 1950

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

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

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

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

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

A  She came to us in about 1884.

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

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

Q  Did she live with you?

A  Yes Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Other Dr Thomas

What goes around comes around. I wrote this article back in 2011 for the Truth History blog on a Dr J Thomas, who had an article reprinted in an early Zion’s Watch Tower. Was he the famous Dr John Thomas of the Christadelphians as had been claimed? Several years later a correspondent sent me an article they had seen on the Dr Thomas of my article. It looked familiar. Not only was the material similar, even the turn of phrase reminded me of me. Now I accept that once you put something on the internet it can get swept up and recycled and I have no problem with that. I would just ask that if you re-use material that a credit is given to the original source, and if you have changed the narrative from the original in any substantive way that this is acknowledged. I am more than happy to take the blame for anything I write, but not necessarily for someone else’s revision.

A Church of God General Conference historian Mark Mattison in a widely circulated article The Provenance of Russellism made some links between the Age to Come (One Faith) movement and the early work of Charles Taze Russell. In Mattison’s estimation there were actually few connections. However, the research on the Truth History blog has made a very clear connection, including the Allegheny group in their “dusty dingy hall” at Quincy Hall, Lacock Street, being listed as a One Faith congregation under the pastoral care of Elder G D Clowes in 1874. (see The Restitution, November 5, 1874). Clowes’ death would be noted in Zion’s Watch Tower for March 1889 – see the reprints page 1110.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I wish to correspond with a physician holding the truth or favorable thereto, with a view to joining with me in the electro-medical treatment of acute and chronic diseases. He must be a graduate and accustomed to general practice – a thoroughly honorable and practical man. Would prefer an unmarried man. Address, Dr J H Thomas, 90 North Avenue, Rochester, NY.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he certainly wasn’t the Doctor John Thomas who founded the Christadelphians. On that score perhaps we can leave the last word to The Christadelphian for September 1882. In commenting on J H Thomas’s tract The Word Made Flesh, the by-line wryly comments: “An exposition that would probably be endorsed by the other Dr Thomas if he were not in Greenwood Cemetery.”

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