The other Charles T Russell

This article first appeared in 2011. Since then more details have been found about the family’s Pittsburgh religious affiliations, and these have been incorporated into this revised article.

In the December 27, 1875 issue of the Pittsburgh Post is a small obituary for a familiar name.

Transcribing it in full It reads:

Charles T. Russell died yesterday morning, in the 69^th year of his age. He will be remembered by our older citizens as one of the most sterling merchants in the city. He began business in Market Street in 1831, where he remained until 1867, since which time he has been in the brokerage and insurance business. He was a native of Ireland, and came to New York in 1823. He took his early lessons in active business from A.T. Stewart, in New York.

  

This Charles T. Russell was Charles Tays Russell (hereafter shortened to Charles Tays). He was the uncle of Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR). His story has a bearing on the history of his famous nephew.

Perhaps at the outset we could consider the unusual middle name of Tays. Where did this come from? In Charles Tays’ will (which will be discussed below) he mentions a sister who never emigrated, Fannie Russell. Fannie married an Alexander Harper, and died in Donegal, Ireland, in 1867. Donegal borders on Londonderry and the newspaper obituaries for CTR’s father, Joseph Lytle, state that he was born in Londonderry. A check on Ancestry shows there was a large family by the name of Tays in that part of Ireland. (One theory is that they were Scots-Irish named after the river Tay in Scotland). So the middle name Tays was likely a family name – a maiden name for a mother, grandmother or aunt.

When Joseph Lytle Russell named his second son Charles Taze Russell, the spelling changed. However, genealogical records from this era often show variations in spelling, particularly in handwritten documents. (Joseph’s middle name for example is often spelled Lytel but cemetery records have him down as Lytle). Phonetically, Tays and Taze are the same - let’s call one the Irish spelling and the other the American.

According to the newspaper obituary, Charles Tays came to New York from Ireland in 1823, and learned business from A.T. Stewart in New York.

Alexander Turney Stewart was a highly successful businessman in dry goods, who was born in Northern Ireland of Scots Protestant stock – very much like the Russell family. After receiving an inheritance, Stewart came to New York in 1823 to found a store that, amongst other things, sold imported Irish fabrics, and ultimately became an empire. Charles Tays moved to New York from Northern Ireland in the same year and his subsequent career as a dry goods merchant is linked to Stewart in the obituary. There is no doubt a story there, even if it is now lost to time.

The obituary says “he began business in Market Street in 1831, where he remained until 1867, since which time he has been in the brokerage and insurance business.”

 Coming from what now called Northern Ireland, the Russell family came from a Presbyterian background and automatically gravitated towards Pittsburgh Presbyterians. Charles Tays is documented as joining the Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh in 1834.

The Third Presbyterian Church Pittsburgh was established in 1834, and as members joined they were given a number. In the very first year of its operation, Charles T Russell, became a member, and was given the number 47. Here is his entry in the church admissions register.

The entry states he was admitted on January 22, 1834, by certificate, which means he came from another Presbyterian Church with a letter of introduction. We do not know which one that was, or whether it was in Pittsburgh or elsewhere.

The right hand column details what eventually happened to these members. The entry for Chas T Russell shows that he was “suspended.” Had he simply left for another church the entry would have read “dismissed” – which can be a bit confusing for readers unfamiliar with the terms as they were used in the register. Had he misbehaved and been expelled the register would have stated that, and quite likely would have given salacious detail of his offense. However, the entry “suspended” in this context suggests that Charles Tays simply lapsed. He stopped attending, he ceased making contributions, and eventually the church wrote him off. There is no evidence of any subsequent involvement in religious affairs for the rest of his (admittedly) sketchy history. And his obituary does not tell us who conducted his funeral service.

Eleven years later his younger brother Joseph Lytle Russell would join the same church, the Third Presbyterian, on March 7, 1845, by certificate.  His assigned number was 551. This means that like Charles Tays before him, he had come from another Presbyterian Church with a letter of introduction, but again we don’t know from which church, whether in Pittsburgh or elsewhere. In Joseph’s case the records show he was ultimately “dismissed” in 1849 (around the time his first son Thomas was born) so simply changed churches again within the Pittsburgh Presbyterian community.

Returning to Charles Tays, according to his obituary, in 1867 he changed direction: “since which time he has been in the brokerage and insurance business.”

 The 1870 Trade Directory for Pittsburgh lists two Charles T. Russells. One is a broker at 111 Smithfield (the Uncle) and the other is a clerk at 96 Liberty (the nephew). On the same page is Joseph L. Russell, furnishing goods at 87 Fifth av, n 96 Liberty.

As noted above, there appears no evidence that Charles Tays took an interest in religious matters later in life, unlike brother Joseph and nephew CTR. The initials CTR have not been found in religious periodicals of the day prior to when they obviously referred to Joseph Lytle’s son.

On December 26, 1875 Charles Tays died. The cause of death was recorded as chronic hepatitis. According to the death certificate he was aged 69, single, and had lived at 112 Smithfield for the last four years. The funeral took place on December 29 and he was buried in the Allegheny cemetery in a plot originally bought by his brother James Russell back in 1845. Already buried there were James Russell, James’ wife Sarah, Eliza Russell (CTR’s mother) and three of her children, Thomas, Lucinda, and Joseph Lytle Jr.

After Charles Tays’ burial, only two more family members would be added – his sister Mary Jane who died in 1886, and finally Joseph Lytle when he died in 1897. (For those who wish to check the Allegheny cemetery records the family plot is Section 7, lot 17. All are listed as buried in grave 1.) A grave marker for Charles Tays has survived, and is shown below.

By the time CTR died in 1916 the Watch Tower Society had its own plot in United Cemeteries in N Pittsburgh, so CTR was buried there.

Charles Tays made a will on March 22, 1872 in which he outlined bequests to a number of relatives. The current family tree for the Russell family in circulation is made up to a large degree from information contained in the will and subsequent documents. Where Charles Tays’ siblings had already died, money - usually in thousand dollar lots - was shared between surviving nephews and nieces if there were any. Joseph Lytle and an attorney David Reed were named as executors of the will. In the event, Reed bowed out, and Joseph became sole executor. For those who would like to check the details for themselves, I have transcribed Charles Tays’ will and other related documents at the end of this article.

So in review, there appear to be three ways that Charles Tays (the other CTR) would affect the history of the Watch Tower movement.

First, he seems responsible for other family members settling in Allegheny and Pittsburgh. From here we have his nephew CTR dropping into a “dusty dingy Hall”, and the rest as they say is history.

Second, CTR’s full name is an obvious gesture towards the Uncle.

Third, there was possible financial help for the work, at least indirectly, from Charles Tays.

Charles Tays did well financially, but his death certificate lists him as unmarried. As noted above, his last will and testament left his assets to surviving brothers and sisters and, where they had predeceased him, to their offspring.

There was a thousand dollars for his brother Alexander (although he was to die before Charles Tays did), a thousand to share between the children of his late sister Fannie, a thousand for Joseph Lytel – and then a larger sum of three thousand dollars that the trustees were asked to invest to pay for the support of his elderly unmarried sister, Mary Jane Russell. On her death, the capital was to be redistributed among the surviving beneficiaries. (There is subsequent documentation on how this did not work out as anticipated and the capital fund had to be dipped into to assist with her care).

An internet search will reveal some confident statements about how much CTR inherited. However, until we have verifiable documentary evidence, any such statements remain hearsay. Still, most would agree that CTR was a shrewd businessman who invested wisely. (For example in the 1894 Harvest Siftings page 21 he explains his success in investing in oil wells). However, it does help to have something tangible to work with. In the parable of the talents the men were given a talent to start with.

So in addition to CTR’s own business acumen in partnership with his father, his uncle’s bequests may have assisted at some point towards what ultimately became CTR’s life’s work.

Such is the story of Charles TAYS Russell. A footnote to history.

  

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CHARLES T RUSSELL

Note on the transcriptions below:

Where a question mark (?) occurs, it means there is some uncertainty as to the transcription because I have worked off photocopies. Only a visit to a Pittsburgh record office might solve these issues; however, they do not affect anything material in the document.

DOCUMENT 1

Last Will and Testament of Charles T. Russell.

Pittsburgh March 22, 1872

 I, Charles T. Russell, of the City of Pittsburgh, County of Allegheny, State of Pennsylvania, do make and publish this my last will and testament, hereby revoking and making void all former wills heretofore made at any time by me.

First, I direct that all my debts and funeral expenses be paid as soon after my decease as possible out of the first monies that shall come into the hands of my executors from any portion of my estate, real or personal.

Second, I direct that executors to convert my goods, chattels and effects into money as soon after my decease as possible.

Third, I will and bequeath to the children of my sister Fanny, who died in the year 1867, and was intermarried with Alexander Harper who is still residing in Donegal County, Ireland, the sum of one thousand dollars.

Fourth, I will and bequeath to my sister Mary Jane three thousand dollars which I direct my executors to put to interest for her during her lifetime and at her death I desire that it shall be equally divided among the heirs mentioned in this will.

Fifth, I will and bequeath to my brother Alexander G. Russell and his children now residing in Orange County, State of New York, one thousand dollars.

Sixth, I will and bequeath to my brother Joseph L. Russell and his children one thousand dollars.

I do hereby nominate and appoint my brother Joseph L. Russell and David Reed, Attorney at Law, to be the executors of this my last will and testament, in testimony thereof , I, the said Charles T. Russell, the testator have to this my will at my hand and seal this twenty second day of March, eighteen hundred and seventy-two.

Attest              Charles T. Russell   seal

State of Pennsylvania

Allegheny County

Be it known that on this thirtieth day of December AD 1875 before me Joseph H. Gray, register of wills of (?) in and for the county aforesaid, came W. W. Patrick and Joseph Irwin, and they being duly qualified (the former affirmed and the latter sworn) did express and say they were well acquainted with C. T. Russell deceased and with his hand writing and that the signature to the foregoing instrument of writing is in his own proper hand writing as they verily believe.

Sworn under my hand this 30^th day of December AD 1875.

Jos. H. Gray, Registrar

State of Pennsylvania

Allegheny County

Be it known that on the 30^th day of December AD 1875, letters testamentary with a copy of the will annexed upon the estate of Charles T. Russell died were duly granted unto Joseph L. Russell one of the executors in said will named (David Reed esq. having renounced) who was duly sworn to well and truly administer the goods and chattels, rights and credits, which were of said deceased, and to faithfully comply with the acts of assembly relating to collateral inheritances.

Given under my hand the above date, Jos. H.  Gray, Registrar

DOCUMENT 2

In Re. Estate of Charles T Russell, Decd.

To the Honorable Wm. G. Hawkins  Jr. Judge of Orphans (?) Court of Allegheny County.

Herewith find testimony of Joseph L. Russell, executor, taken at his residence No 80 Cedar Avenue, Allegheny City on Friday April 12, 1878, in accordance with the commission issued to me April 6, 1878.

W F McCook (?)

Mr Joseph L. Russell, (?)

I am the acting executor under the will of my brother, Charles T. Russell, deceased. Hon. David Reed was executor named in the will but declined to act. All the bills against the estate have been paid as far as I know.

The distributions made under the will are as follows:

1st  The children of Fannie Harper are:

Mrs F. A. Stewart, Wellsville, Montgomery County, Missouri

John R. Harper, Arlington, St Louis County, Missouri

Mrs Mary Muir, Grand Rapids, Michigan

William James Harper, Broxton, near Castlefin (?) Donegal County, Ireland

Mrs (indistinct – secondary sources say Eliza Nesbitt) Donegal County, Ireland

Thomas R. Harper, Jimason City, Plumas County, California

2^nd distribution

Mary Jane Russell, Allegheny City, Penna.

3^rd

Alexander G. Russell, named in the will as brother of deceased died before the decedent. His children are:

Thomas Green Russell, St Louis, Mo.

Sarah Ann Morris, Montgomery, Orange County, New York

Fanny G. Bond, Plainfield, New Jersey

Cornelia S. Davenport, No. 74 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, New York

(my copy of the document ends here)

DOCUMENT 3

Document dated September 2, 1886 relating to Mary Jane Russell’s inheritance.

Whereas the late Charles T. Russell, who died in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1875, bequeathed three thousand dollars ($3000) to his executors in trust, to pay the interest to his sister, Miss Mary Jane Russell, during her lifetime , and, upon her death, to distribute the principal equally among “the heirs mentioned in this will”; and whereas through the inability of his executors to collect certain debts that were due to the estate of the said Charles T. Russell, deceased, the said fund was reduced from three thousand dollars ($3000) to fourteen hundred and eighteen and 51/100 dollars; and whereas the fund so reduced could not be made to yield more than six percent interest, about eighty five dollars per year, and whereas the said Mary Jane Russell is now very aged and infirm and has constantly required more than the amount of the interest of said fund to maintain her, and whereas now much more, she is in need of comfort and attention in her closing years; and whereas it has been found needful to extract certain debts for her maintenance and may require additional debt therefore in the future; Therefore we, Stephen H. Davenport and Cornelia S. Davenport, his wife, in consideration of the premises and of our dollar (?) in hand paid to each of us, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby authorize J. L. Russell, acting executor of the will of the said Charles T. Russell, deceased, to use as much of the principal of the said fund, in addition to the interest, as may be required, in his judgment, to pay the necessary expenses of the said Mary Jane Russell and the debts that have been extracted for her maintenance. And we hereby release and forever discharge the said J. L. Russell, his executors and administrators of and from such part of our share of the said as he shall so expend. It being understood that the balance of said fund not required for the above mentioned purpose shall be distributed in accord with the terms of the will of the said Charles T. Russell, upon the death of the said Mary Jane Russell.

Witness our hands and seal this second day of September AD 1886.

Stephen H Davenport  seal

Cornelia S Davenport  seal

74 Hicks Street

Brooklyn, NY

Notes on the above

Mary Jane Russell died before the end of 1886 and is buried in the family plot in Allegheny Cemetery.

Cornelia Davenport (a daughter of Alexander Russell) and her husband lived quite near to where the Brooklyn Tabernacle would be. However, she died on October 23, 1888.

Lardent cards

 Pictured above are cards L-18, L-88, L-120, and F-13

Pictured above are cards L-27 and L-132

Quite collectable, Lardent cards are often found as bookmarks in old publications of the Watch Tower Society when they become available. They were also used to send messages, so often contain interesting personal information on the reverse sides.

Frederick Jethro Lardent was born in 1885 and lived until 1970. He was an optician by profession, and wrote articles for medical magazines on occasion. He produced two sets of cards – one with the prefix L (obviously for Lardent) which ran to nearly 200 different copies, and one with the prefix F (for Frederick) which were more photographic in nature.

His cards were circulated by all strands of Bible Student opinion until the mid to late-1920s. Then, as the Daily Heavenly Manna was phased out along with other changes, his cards were more circulated by those who left the Society. By 1931 he was on the speaker’s list for a breakaway movement in Britain. He published several anthologies of his cards, such as The Call of the Bride and Comforted of God. He also published several books – one on God’s Wonderful Time Clock and another on The Hidden Meaning of Bible Colours. He founded an association called The Christian Truth Institute which published a journal which folded about 1941.

In his will he left his printing blocks to Albert Hudson. Hudson, who once described Lardent’s efforts as having “a sublime disregard for copyright” promptly dumped them. This adds to the scarcity value of the product for collectors


The link may cease to work in the future, but at the time this article was published you could examine a variety of these cards at:  https://archive.org/details/BibleStudentLardentCards

Future Probation

In Bible Examiner (hereafter abbreviated to BE) for October 1877, page 6, the editor George Storrs made one of his periodic pleas for support. While thanking readers for their prayers, he noted that financial help would also be welcome. His paper, he claimed, was unique. He argued “shall the only paper in America that speaks out boldly on this question be compelled to suffer and be crippled for want of funds?” There is an asterisk by the word America, and the footnote reads: “I except “The Herald of the Morning,” a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.”

By this date, Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated as CTR) was fully supporting Barbour and the Herald.

Since the same issue of BE has Storrs debating with CTR over the date-setting properties of Three Worlds, it was obviously not Barbour’s chronological gymnastics that appealed. The doctrine or “question” that set The Herald apart from all other current publications in Storrs’ mind was Future Probation.

It is not the purpose of this article to comment on whom might be nearer the truth on the subject, as we are writing history not theology. But future probation had been a contentious issue for Christendom for centuries.

To define the concept – future probation is the belief that in the future individuals could have a testing period with the prospect of eternal life ahead of them. So their everlasting prospects were not just determined by what they did in this life, but they would benefit from a probationary period in the future after resurrection. It was usually (although not exclusively) tied in with a literal Millennial reign by Christ over a literal earth. However, just who might benefit was a bone of contention amongst those espousing the doctrine – would it include “the wicked” or just the “ignorant” like the heathen or unbaptised infants - and if “wicked” how exactly might one define the term?

Orthodoxy in centuries past came out strongly against such a concept. If individuals did not accept Christ in this life, then that was it, there was no further chance. One example was in the official creed of the established Church of England. In 1552 Archbishop Cranmer produced the “42 Articles of Faith.” Article 42 attacked those who believed in future opportunities after death with the words: “They also are worthy of condemnation who endeavour at this time to restore the dangerous opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when they have suffered pain for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice.” While attacking a Universalist view, and perhaps a further swipe at the Roman Church’s purgatory (already attacked in article 22), it also reaffirmed that the “ungodly” – however defined – had lost out forever at death. Any other view was “a dangerous opinion.” Since the concept of Future Probation requires a location for it to happen – such as the earth during the Millennium – Article 41 of the same document obligingly condemned believers in the Millennium as heretics. However, it should be noted that ten years later in 1562 these articles ended up on the cutting room floor. The Church of England of today has to manage with just 39 Articles.

When this view was coupled with traditional teachings on hell – that all those not accepting Christ in this life were destined for eternal torment – it was perhaps unsurprising that some felt uneasy at the prospect of millions being so condemned. This was especially so if their opportunities to accept Christ in this life had been limited by geography and circumstance. Putting it in very human terms – was that fair? Those raising such questions were not accusing God of being unfair, but were aiming at the theologians who seemed to suggest that the vast majority of mankind would have been better off not being born at all.

One reaction against orthodoxy was to swing to the extreme of Universalism – the concept that eventually all would be saved. Writers such as John Murray in America promoted Universalism in the 18^th century. Universal Salvation might take some time – it WOULD take some time – but ultimately that was God’s plan. Some individuals were even sufficiently magnanimous to include the Devil in these calculations. (A few associated with CTR would eventually leave the Bible Student movement to become Universalists, including John Paton and his aptly-titled Larger Hope Publishing Company).

Once interest in the Second Advent drew various people together in the first half of the nineteenth century, another dimension was added by the acceptance by many of conditional immortality. This doctrine taught that immortality was not automatic, but was conditional. Those who did not gain eternal life would gain eternal sleep. That dealt effectively with the concept of a burning hell, but also affected the concept of future probation. If the wicked – whether through intent or ignorance – were just going to sleep forever, that wasn’t so bad, was it? So while future probation was debated by the Advent Christians and Age to Come groups, the majority came out against the concept, or at least had views on salvation more exclusive than inclusive.

Taking the Advent Christians first, their official histories had some tart comments to make on the doctrine. Isaac C. Welcome in “History of the Second Advent Message” (1874), pages 515, 613, laid into George Storrs’ view of “probation after the Advent” as erratic and radical and “very detrimental to the progress of truth and sound doctrine.” The doctrine was “nearly analogous to Universalism.” Albert C. Johnson in “Advent Christian History” (1918), pages 242-243, described 19^th century advocates as a kind of fifth column –  “(they were) finally distracted and disorganized by the advocates of future probation theories, who worked their way into the conference quietly until they gained control” – the conference had “been perverted by the age-to-come teachings.”

As suggested by the last quote, some in Age to Come fellowships were more sympathetic towards the idea. The first prerequisite for the unsaved to return for their “chance” was somewhere for them to return to, and the Age to Come focus was already on human life for a thousand years. But this was the exception rather than the norm. One must also remember that the term ‘Age to Come’ covered a wide spectrum of ideas when it came to the details. With a nice flourish of hyperbole, the Seventh Day Adventist magazine Review and Herald for May 14, 1889, said: “the doctrines passing under the general designation of Age to Come Views are about as numerous as the individuals holding them.” But looking at The Restitution (the paper we know CTR read), they were happy to publish such articles against the concept as J.F. Wilcox’s ‘There is a Flaw’ in July 28, 1874. This categorically pronounced that “the whole...world who have not had God’s revealed word, but who...sinned without law, shall never be raised from the dead...as natural brute beasts they utterly perish in their own corruption.” Whereas an article promoting future probation, ‘The Progressive Age’ by Elder J. Parry, was denied publication, so Storrs published it instead in his BE for July 1874. By October 3, 1877, Elder John Foore was writing to The Restitution that he would like the paper “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.” The request apparently fell on deaf ears.

With these other columns denied him, Storrs believed BE to be the primary voice for this doctrine, and fended off critics from all sides. When opponents dubbed the position “second chance” – it was met with the retort that for millions who died in ignorance this was their first chance. When critics then came back with “better chance” – it was met with the riposte, how could that be when now the chance was to be part of the bride of Christ?

Others settled on “fair chance.” As it happened, Storrs didn’t like that description any more than the others (BE October 1875, page 5), but it was more correct – you could say, more fair - in describing his theology. 

When opposers accused Future Probationists of being closet Universalists, Storrs standard response was that while he did not believe in universal salvation, he did believe in universal opportunity.

And yet Storrs’ position was not quite the same as others believing the doctrine. He defined his position as The Ages to Come. While it sounded like the Age to Come belief in a literal thousand years for humans on earth (and probation for nations then living), Storrs embellished it considerably. He spoke of Ages because he did not believe probation would happen for the dead during the Millennium, but rather after the Millennium in what he called “a succession of ages” or Ages to Come. (BE October 1874, editorial ‘The Ages to Come’). He accepted that not everyone would come back, and had broken with the Life and Advent Union over his belief that wicked dead would not be resurrected; nonetheless, the number would still be sufficient to require potential Ages (plural). And some who came back could still lose out – albeit a minority.

A key scripture for Storrs was Revelation 20 v.5: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” In his article ‘Due Time’ (BE August 1876) Storrs used this to reason that their resurrection and probation had to take place after the Millennium. Others might interpret this as referring to beneficiaries only coming to full life after passing their test at the end of the thousand years. Those opposed to the concept in its various shapes and forms, might dismiss the verse as an interpolation.

Storrs was a major influence on CTR. CTR chose the BE columns for his first known literary efforts, and in ZWT for May 1,1890, singled out Storrs (along with George Stetson) for special mention before recounting how his understanding of the ransom and restitution developed – to encompass far more than he had previously thought. The original May 1, 1890 issue, page 4, has CTR explaining how “in 1873 I came to examine the subject of restitution from the standpoint of the ransom price given by our Lord Jesus for Adam, and consequently for all lost in Adam, it settled the matter of restitution completely, and gave fullest assurance that ALL must come forth from Adamic death and be brought to a clear knowledge of the truth and to fullest opportunity of everlasting life in Christ.”

When CTR reprinted the article in A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings – a special ZWT of 1894, he made several revisions to this paragraph (as found on page 96), including changing the date from 1873 to 1872. All future printings including those from June 15, 1906 (reprints 3821) stick to this revision.

But this was future probation. Without going into details, this was Storrs’ basic message in BE. Storrs had restarted BE in late 1871, after breaking with the Life and Advent Union. We do not know if CTR received Storrs journal then, because the first two years of the revived BE are unavailable. It was a weekly newspaper and may not have survived. But from October 1873 it became a monthly which could be bound into volumes. These have survived, and the Russells are readers from the start. However, they obviously would know of Storrs from his previous reputation. The Russell names are also found in the letters received columns of The Advent Christian Times and the World’s Crisis in the early 1870s – and the Crisis is certainly known to have publicised Storrs’ views by vigorously attacking them at the time.

CTR would claim in ZWT May 1, 1890, page 4, that he brought this concept to Nelson Barbour. “When we first met, he had much to learn from me on the fullness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all.”

All this helps to explain why in October 1877 Storrs would single out “The Herald of the Morning, a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.” as the only journal he believed to be supportive.

Barbour had already submitted an article endorsing future probation to BE, which was published in September 1876. In ‘The Work of Redemption Progressive: or Ages Employed in Accomplishing It’ Barbour stated “there is much positive scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin.”

While the article was sympathetic of Storrs’ views in principle, it was a little short on specifics. And looking closer at the details, there would be a key difference between Storrs’ views and those of Barbour and Russell. As noted above, Storrs taught Ages to Come, and looked beyond the Millennium for future probation to be worked out. In contrast, both Barbour and Russell would favor a more traditional view – that the Millennium was the judgment “day” and that a thousand years would be sufficient.

In Barbour’s Three Worlds (1877) for example, we read on pages 10 and 66: “There is much positive Scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the millennial age, or world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin...It follows that probation must end with the thousand years.”

When CTR began publishing under his own name, he presented the same view. From Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return (1877), page 26: “In (their day of trial, when they are on probation for eternal life) their “day of judgment” (not a 24-hour day, but the millennial or judgment age) they will fare better than the Jews — have fewer stripes.” He elaborated further in Food for Thinking Christians (1881), page 95: “It is their judgment day—one thousand years. During all that time, God’s truth, as a two-edged sword, will be quietly, but surely as now, doing a separating work...The great mass of mankind will learn God’s ways, and delight to walk therein. These he calls his sheep—followers, and during the age they are gradually gathered to his right hand.”

Looking at CTR’s theology overall, this was his main message, a legacy from Storrs, in spirit if not in detail. Yes, the second presence of Christ was a key theme with its chronological framework. Yes, “putting the hose on hell” with conditional immortality was a key platform. Yes, there would be issues like clashes with orthodoxy over the trinity. Nonetheless, in CTR’s mind at the time, future probation – summed up by his slogan “A Ransom for All” was what he believed to be the key message of the Bible. And he made sure as many as possible knew it.

Convention report cover for 1907

With grateful thanks to Jeff for his suggestions and the SDA quotation.

Harry E Humphrey

(Photo taken from Google Images from an old Victor record catalog)

Harry Ervin Humphrey was the main voice of the Photodrama of Creation, as well as the voice of the reissued Angelophone recordings found in IBSA catalogs from 1916. As such, he deserves a footnote in Watch Tower history.

Humphrey was born in 1873. In his long career, he was variously described as a monologist, an elocutionist, an actor and recording artist. His heyday was in the years prior to 1925 when audio recordings were acoustic. In those days, raw sound with its limited frequency range was literally collected by a horn and sent to equipment that vibrated a cutting stylus. Recording artistes sometimes had to virtually put their head into the recording horn and shout to get an acceptable result.

Even so, to get sufficient “bite” for this kind of recording a certain voice quality was needed. This determined who was to become a recording star and who fell by the wayside in the early days of sound recording.

Humphrey worked with Thomas Alva Edison, one of whose inventions was the phonograph – originally intended as an office Dictaphone system, before the entertainment world took over. When Edison later produced a system for linking recordings with film to create a sound system called the Kinetophone, Humphrey worked with him in his South Orange laboratories.

Throughout the 1910s and the first half of the 1920s Humphrey was very busy. As well as a plethora of Blue Amberol cylinders and Diamond Discs for Edison, Humphrey also recorded discs for other labels like Victor. His output included speeches, poems, explanatory dialog to go with music, and finally – language learning recordings.

If you want a flavor of his style – apart from Watch Tower related recordings – there are quite a few on YouTube. They include famous poems such as Gunga Din (a lovely over the top performance) and famous speeches like Lincoln’s Speech at Gettysburg. Perhaps one of the most entertaining dates from 1922 – Santa Claus Hides in Your Phonograph – Humphrey’s maniacal laugh would be enough to scare the living daylights out of most children of the day.

So when the timbre of CTR’s voice was judged unsuitable for the Photodrama’s main recordings, the Watch Tower Society went to the top man of the day to fill the gap. There appears no evidence that Humphrey took any personal interest in the Bible Student movement; this was simply another job for which he was paid in what were very busy years for him.

He was hired again to help salvage the Angelophone debacle, which has been earlier described on this blog. There were fifty small records issued on which Henry Burr sang hymns on one side, and CTR recorded a short descriptive sermon on the reverse. The recordings were poor due to CTR’s voice quality, exacerbated by his poor health in 1916. After complaints were received, the sermons were re-recorded by Humphrey. The project was probably not helped by the use of the “hill and dale” method of recording – as with cylinders, the needle travelled up and down in the groove rather than from side to side. It meant the discs could be a smaller 7 inch size, but it also meant they could all too easily be damaged by the wrong type of equipment. You were supposed to buy an Acme, Superba or Cabinet Angelophone to play them.

The idea of having music on one side of a disc and a descriptive lecture on the other was quite common at this time, and Humphrey later did a series explaining short operatic pieces on the Edison Diamond label.

The death-knell for his main employment came around 1925, when electrical recording was introduced across the board. Recording deficiencies in a wide range of voices could now be overcome. Also one suspects that Humphrey’s stentorian style – redolent of Victorian recitations – went rapidly out of style in the roaring twenties.

His subsequent career was as an actor. A few appearances in small parts on Broadway are listed, and he is credited with co-writing a play called The Skull c. 1928. It was reviewed as “an old fashioned melodrama” and published in book form in 1937. The Library of Congress lists a play called The Curse of Tamerlane, copyrighted in 1929 by Bernard J McOwen and Harry Ervin Humphrey. There is a possibility that this is The Skull under its original name.

Then in the sound era he had a few minor roles in movies. They ranged from the prestigious - Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons, to the less than prestigious - Dick Tracey’s G Men.

Perhaps the nicest gesture was a bit part in the 1940 film, Edison the Man – where the story of his old mentor was given the Hollywood treatment starring Spencer Tracey. Humphrey did not play himself, but had an uncredited bit part as a broker.

Humphrey died in 1947 (aged 73) in Los Angeles County, California. A successful application for a veteran’s grave marker showed that he had enlisted for one year at the time of the Spanish-American war. His war service was from May 24, 1898 to May 11, 1899 as a private in the 4^th U.S. Cavalry. It also confirms his full name as Harry Ervin Humphrey.

Adventist or Age to Come? Muddying the Waters

Many writers on Watch Tower history have, in the past, linked the work of Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR) to the Adventists. It is now realised that his views on such essential subjects as salvation came from the Age to Come movement. The problem is that one group of Adventists (those that became the Advent Christian Church) used to loosely fellowship with Age to Come believers, and this was true of the group in Allegheny that the Russell family knew. With a mutual interest in Christ’s return and conditional immortality, they rubbed shoulders after a fashion for several decades in the 19^th century, as the distinction both evolved and yet at times was blurred. Eventually of course the two groups went their own separate ways. As did CTR.

This has been partly touched on in two earlier articles on this blog 1874-1875 – “Allegheny-Pittsburgh – Adventist or Age to Come” and “Charles Taze Russell and The Restitution.”

Even researchers who acknowledge Age to Come believers have lumped them together as Adventists. A typical example is the thesis by the late David Arthur of Aurora University, “Called Out of Babylon,” which discussed people like Marsh and Storrs under the chapter title ‘Age to Come Adventists.’ George Storrs would not have approved. However, if you lived at the time, particularly if you were an outsider or onlooker, it would be all too easy to lump disparate groups together under one label. Sometimes the groups in question didn’t help matters by the terms they used. This article tries to illustrate the problem, which can cloud judgments today.

As the Advent Christian Church became a denomination with a specific statement of belief, so Age to Come adherents found associating with them more problematic. Ultimately, people who had fellowshipped together – albeit uneasily – increasingly divided into separate parties.

A letter in The Restitution for July 28, 1880, called Adventists “half brethren”. Reading through some Restitutions for the 1890s, they weren’t even being awarded that backhanded honor by then.

And yet...

On the ground, there remained some confusion in the public consciousness as to who was actually who.

However, first: to illustrate how feelings within the Age to Come community became increasingly anti-Adventist, here are a few choice quotations from the Restitution from the 1890s:

From the pen of W.H. Wilson in Restitution for July 8, 1896, page 1: “There is a marked distinction between Adventists, and true members of the Church of God, who believe and obey the gospel of the Kingdom. With regard to communing with Adventists, I would say, what fellowship can obedient gospel believers have with those who destroy the gospel? We must be firm in the faith, yet kind and gentle to all men.”

Being a little more specific, one Ira R. Hall wrote in Restitution for August 12, 1896, page 1: “I had rather go into a place where they have never heard anything, than to go into a Crisis’ Advent community.”

A Crisis Advent community would of course be their former associates, the Advent Christian Church.

Such negative feelings were mutual. Another complaint from The Restitution for May 20, 1896, page 2: “We have a church here. They style themselves Adventists, but do not fellowship (with) us, so we cannot worship with them. They reject the glorious doctrine of the age to come.”

And yet...

For the public not directly involved with the protagonists, Age to Come people were still often lumped together with Adventists. A report from evangelist A.H. Zilmer preaching in Indiana in The Restitution for March 2, 1898, page 3, makes the comment “there is much prejudice against the Adventists, AS WE ARE TERMED (capitals mine).”

It may be that just preaching about the return of Christ was sufficient to confuse the masses, but there was also the problem of nomenclature. Surprisingly (for this writer at least) some Age to Come congregations still chose to call themselves Advent Churches into the 1890s.

A letter from J.S. Hatch in The Restitution for April 15, 1896, page 2, bemoaned the plethora of names in current use amongst Restitution readers: “I find in my travels in one locality they call themselves the Advent Church and in some the Church of the Abrahamic Faith, and in another Church of the Blessed Hope, and still another Soul Sleepers, the name the enemies of God call us, and some take the name of the One Faith. Is that right, brethren? Come, let us have one uniform name in all localities.” Hatch then makes a vigorous argument for them all to stick with the title Church of God.

What was this? Age to Come congregations calling themselves the Advent Church? Yes. One such congregation might have been one based in Philadelphia that was regularly advertised in The Restitution in the latter 1880s as The Church of the Second Advent. (For example, see The Restitution for December 5, 1888, page 4.)

Another culprit (if that be the right word) was John T. Ongley, who had been active in CTR’s home area in the 1870s. Ongley received a special mention in The Restitution in 1897 (August 4, page 4) in a letter from the Leader and Secretary and Treasurer of a newly established group. The letter reads in part: “We had the pleasure of a visit from Elder J.T. Ongley of Crawford Co. Pa....Before leaving he organised us in a body of ten members under the following rule of faith: - We the undersigned...identify ourselves as the Church of God, called SECOND ADVENT, in Batavia NY, organised this date, July 2, 1897, by Elder J.T. Ongley (capitals mine).”

Funeral reports from this era sometimes have Age to Come preachers speaking in what is called The Advent Church, but whether this was their own fellowship or as guest speakers for the occasion in Advent Christian Churches is not made clear.

Ultimately, time took care of the confusion. The different titles for congregations thinned down – at least slightly – and “Advent Church” slipped off the Age to Come radar. By 1903 The Restitution for January 28, page 1, could use the term Advent Church and define it with the comment “whose views of Bible teaching, is voiced, in the main, by the World's Crisis and Our Hope” – clearly now referring to the Advent Christian Church alone. The term Advent would be left with those who had embraced it from the start. As the Evangelical Adventists faded away, Advent without a Seventh Day prefix would generally refer to the Advent Christian Church and its papers like The Crisis and Our Hope.

During this time, CTR’s movement continued to grow – drawing fire from his former Age to Come associates, with any connections long since overlooked and forgotten. And CTR’s background was obscured by a lack of biographical information in his own writings. So, being charitable, perhaps some of the past researchers who did not have The Restitution paper available for consultation can be forgiven for missing out on the nuances of the situation.

The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society

(This article on Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott interlinear translation was first posted back in 2011. It has attracted quite a bit of attention over the intervening years and has been slightly revised as extra information has come to light)

The Emphatic Diaglott had a major role to play in the early history of the Watch Tower Society. It is quite easy to read up on Wilson’s own history and how the Diaglott came into being. However, this article is mainly written to reveal who actually obtained the plates and gave the copyright to the Watch Tower Society in 1902.

Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott was first published in one volume in 1864 after being issued as a part-work starting August 1858 with Wilson’s journal The Gospel Banner. The version published by Fowler and Wells of New York was widely used by various Adventist and Age to Come groups, and the main Age to Come newspaper The Restitution partly grew out of The Gospel Banner. Wilson had been a friend of John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians, but the two ultimately had doctrinal differences and split. While Thomas founded the Christadelphians, Wilson – although strongly anti-organization - had a major role in the founding of the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith. Today, the descendants of his group are usually called the Church of the Blessed Hope or Abrahamic Faith – a faction who did not join the Church of God General Conference in 1920.

Its connection with Watch Tower history (or pre-history) starts when one of Nelson Barbour’s readers, Benjamin Keith, hit upon Wilson’s translation of the Greek word “parousia” as “presence” rather than “coming”. This set minds working on an apparently failed prediction for Christ’s second coming in 1874. If the coming was an invisible presence (although that was not how Wilson would understand the matter) then their expectations had actually been fulfilled – but invisibly. This view ultimately became a major part of Charles Taze Russell’s belief system. (Hereafter abbreviated to CTR).

Once established, Zion’s Watch Tower Society highly endorsed the Diaglott. In Old Theology Quarterly for April 1893 “Friendly Hints on Bible Study and Students’ Helps” pages 9 and 10, the Diaglott is highly recommended as “another of God’s special blessings for our day...While we cannot say this work is perfect, we can say that we know of no other translation of the New Testament so valuable to the critical student – and this includes all to whom we write.”

Early copies had a note pasted in the front entitled A Friendly Criticism, which detailed some doctrinal differences between CTR and Wilson. While praising the work highly, the note drew attention to certain issues such as a personal devil, the pre-human existence of Jesus and his resurrected state - where the actual interlinear and Wilson’s own English version were not thought to harmonize.

At the same time, The Restitution paper carried an advertisement for the Diaglott each week for several decades.

Wilson died in 1900. Shortly after, in 1902, the copyright to the Diaglott was obtained for the Watch Tower Society, and they became its publisher for nearly one hundred years. Anyone who wanted to obtain a Diaglott now had to contact the Watch Tower Society.

The journal “Christadelphian Tidings of the Kingdom of God” for January 2009 in its article “Reflections” commented on how some erroneously thought the Diaglott to be a product of Russellism. It explained that “the confusion probably arises because the copyright for The Diaglott was purchased in the early 20th century by an anonymous buyer who then donated it to the Watchtower Society.”

The article viewed the Watch Tower Society’s publishing the work as “a sad, ironic twist of history.” It stressed there was no evidence that Wilson ever came in contact with Millennial Dawn.

This conflicts with a claim made in Consolation magazine for November 8, 1944, page 4 which states “Mr Wilson knew of the truth, and it is reported that he at one time attended some of the meetings of Jehovah’s people, but disagreed on certain fundamental issues.” It must be said that this is unreferenced information written decades after events, and the words “it is reported” do not necessarily bode well. There are a number of other Diaglott references from Consolation magazine in the 1940s. They state that the Diaglott “was produced about 1867” (February 3, 1943, page 29), that the “Society bought the plates and publication rights from the author, Mr Wilson” (February 3, 1943, page 29), and that Wilson “was a Christadelphian” (November 22, 1944, page 30). We now know that all these statements are incorrect. While the Consolation writers analysed the Diaglott’s strengths effectively, they obviously had limited historical records at their disposal.

What CAN be easily established today is that Wilson would certainly have known of Millennial Dawn and CTR. Wilson wrote for The Restitution almost up to the time of his death in 1900, and The Restitution regularly reviewed CTR’s works and activities. Wilson was also a special contributor to The Millenarian when it reviewed CTR’s Divine Plan of the Ages in February 1887. And a nephew of Wilson wrote a booklet attacking CTR’s theology.

There is also an account of several meetings between Wilson and ZWT Pilgrim J A Bohnet in 1892. Bohnet wrote up the experience many years later in an article on the front page of the St Paul Enterprise for April 4, 1916. He described how CTR had provided Wilson’s address, and how Bohnet visited Wilson several times at his home in Sacramento, California. Amongst other things they discussed CTR’s Friendly Criticism paste-in mentioned above. It was obviously amicable, but there was no meeting of minds – they remained divided on a number of issues including their understanding of the ransom and the pre-existence of Christ.

What does come out from their conversations as recorded by Bohnet is that reports that Wilson objected to CTR using his work so extensively were denied by Wilson. He was also asked point blank whether he was a Christadelphian? Wilson’s answer was, “No, I am a member of no organized denomination.”

Much misinformation has been circulated over how the Watch Tower Society obtained the rights to the Diaglott.

The book “Jehovah’s Witnesses – A Comprehensive and Selectively Annotated Bibliography” published by Greenwood Press in 1999, is one such example. On page 61 it relates how Benjamin Wilson (or as it calls him, Professor Wilson) wanted to sell the rights to the Diaglott because he got into serious financial trouble, but blocked CTR’s attempts to buy them. CTR then used a third party to keep his name out of it, so that Wilson couldn’t stop him. When Wilson discovered CTR had obtained the rights by such a devious method he publicly claimed there were numerous errors in the Diaglott anyway and he was going to produce a revised edition. No supporting references are given for this story, there is no record of anything of the sort in The Restitution – as already noted above, this was a paper with plenty to say about CTR on other issues - and history records that Wilson had been dead for a couple of years when the rights changed hands. We can safely discount such anecdotes as fantasy – with an obvious agenda.

Returning to the above quotation from “Christadelphian Tidings”, their reference to an anonymous buyer harkens back to the Society’s own description of the event. The Proclaimers book on page 606 made the comment: “That same year (1902), the Watch Tower Society came into possession of the printing plates for The Emphatic Diaglott...Those plates and the sole right of publication had been purchased and then given as a gift to the Society.”

The original reference comes from the back page of the Watch Tower for December 15, 1902 (which is not in the reprints). In offering the Diaglott as part of a list of available publications, the blurb stated:

“For several years a friend, an earnest Bible student, desirous of assisting the readers of our Society's publications, has supplied them through us at a greatly reduced price; now he has purchased the copyright and plates from the Fowler & Wells Co., and presented the same to our Society as a gift, under our assurance that the gift will be used for the furthering of the Truth to the extent of our ability, by such a reduction of price as will permit the poor of the Lord's flock to have this help in the study of the Word. REDUCED PRICES.--These will be sold with ZION'S WATCH TOWER only.”

So who was this earnest Bible student, anonymous friend and benefactor?

The answer was established in a court hearing in 1907. And it is not rocket science to guess who it really was.

In 1903 Maria Russell initiated court proceedings against CTR for what ultimately resulted in a divorce from bed and board – an official separation, but one where neither she nor CTR were ever legally free to remarry. Much hinged on the issue of financial support, and in April 1907 testimony was taken on CTR’s financial situation. Maria tried to establish that CTR still had considerable funds, whereas CTR testified that, bit by bit, he had already donated his assets to the WT Society. CTR was questioned at length about his financial affairs over previous years.

The Bible House had been turned over to the Society in 1898 and other properties subsequently – including the house Maria had lived in up to 1903. Now they were in 1907, CTR testified he had a small bank balance and an arrangement for board and lodging for the duration of his natural life.

However, the court testimony shows quite clearly that, back in 1902, and for a little while thereafter, CTR still retained direct control of funds in his own name. And in the details of this testimony he explained quite openly just how the Society obtained the Diaglott.

He stressed that the aim had been to allow as many as possible to obtain the Diaglott, and so had made it available on a not for profit basis.

Quoting from pages 204-205 of the transcript of the April 1907 hearing, CTR said (and CAPITALS MINE):

“We publish also a brief New Testament, with an interlinear translation in English, and the marginal translation. It was published originally and for many years, for 30 or 40 years, by Fowler and Wells, of New York. THE PLATES WERE PRESENTED TO THE SOCIETY BY MYSELF. The Society had certain corrections made in the new plates etc., as they were considerably worn, and the edition which Fowler and Wells retailed at $4.00 and wholesaled at $2.66 – 2/3 the Society is now publishing at $1.50 per copy, and it includes postage of 16 cents on this, and as they are nearly all purchased by subscribers to the Watch Tower it goes additional with each volume, and in his subscription to the journal; that is to say, that the Watch Tower for the year and this book that was formerly sold for $4.00 go altogether, with postage included, for $1.50, WITH THE VIEW OF INTERESTING PEOPLE IN THE WATCH TOWER PUBLICATION, and permitting the Watch Tower subscribers to have the Diaglott in every home possible.”

So before CTR donated his remaining assets to the Watch Tower Society, he was able to donate the plates personally to the Watch Tower Society.

The repairs to the plates extended the life of the Diaglott, and the new price made it more accessible to the public. In addition, throwing in a year’s Watch Tower subscription as part of the deal was adroit proselytizing. For instance, any newcomers to the world of The Restitution who wanted a Diaglott (or just wanted to replace a copy), now had to approach the Watch Tower Society for one. It was perhaps not surprising that attacks on CTR’s theology intensified in The Restitution in the early 20^th century.

However, this leaves us with the question: Why did CTR chose to remain anonymous, referring instead to a nameless benefactor?

It is here this writer is on shaky ground, because we have no direct way of knowing. But I can suggest two reasons why CTR might have done this.

First, there are his comments in the booklet A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings published in 1894.This detailed CTR’s recent difficulties with certain individuals. One was an Elmer Bryan, who made certain accusations against CTR and brought two other brothers (H Weber and M Tuttle) to see him to apply the steps of Matthew 18:15-17. As recorded in the booklet, Brothers Weber and Tuttle heard both parties out and came to the conclusion that Bryan’s accusations were ridiculous. One involved the use of the pseudonym Mrs C B Lemuels (of behalf of Maria Russell) in advertising material some years previously. In dispatching this criticism, CTR said on page 45: “Besides, I bring my own name as little into prominence as possible. This will be noticed in connection with everything I have published – the O(ld) T(heology) Tracts, the DAWNS, etc.”

Looking at the tract series and early editions of the Dawns (Studies) one would be hard put to discover the author. CTR indeed kept quite a low profile. In some respects this was to change when the newspaper sermon work got off the ground. Newspapers wanted personalities and CTR reluctantly became one. But that was further down the line.

But that basic desire to keep a personal name out of matters may have influenced CTR’s decision to donate the Diaglott without claiming personal credit.

A second related reason may be tied to another comment from A Conspiracy Exposed, this time page 40. In connection with a business matter, CTR made the comment that he “preferred to avoid any unnecessary notoriety.” Had the world known that CTR had bought the plates and the rights from Fowler and Wells, there could have been uproar in certain quarters. This writer would theorize that if various Age to Come groups who used the Diaglott knew for certain that CTR had personally brought their baby under his control – and now would only make it available with a year’s worth of his journal – promoting his brand of heresy as they saw it – then cries of “Foul” and “Unfair” would ring out loud and clear.

There would be rumbles whatever happened, but no name – no direct blame. An anonymous benefactor leading to a publishing organisation generously providing the volume at reduced cost to all was far better P.R.

In fact, CTR did the public a great service. He rescued the Diaglott from potential oblivion with the state of the plates as they were. Then that reduction from $4.00 to $1.50 was well worth having. And for around a hundred years thereafter, the Watch Tower Society made this translation readily available to all. Ultimately the copyright expired and the Society’s inventory dwindled. Since 2004, groups like the Abrahamic Faith Beacon Publishing Society published their own version and viewed the translation as “coming home”. Interestingly, the modern versions published have retailed at a far higher price than the Watchtower Society ever charged, even when they did have a fixed contribution for literature.