Margaretta

Margaretta Russell Land, to give her the usual full married name was the natural sister of Charles Taze Russell, two years his junior. As such she played a role in his history, and ultimately was buried next to him in United Cemeteries, Ross Township, Pittsburgh.

Below is an extract from the official cemetery register as supplied by the current owner. A number of names are deliberately obscured because many of these are more recent burials and not our concern. But on this sheet for Section T, Lot 34, you can see that CTR was buried in Plot A, Grave 1. At the bottom of the page, below the name of John Coolidge, who was buried at the end of the row and whose name is inscribed on the famous pyramid memorial, is the name Margaretta R Land. She is buried in Plot A, Grave 2, and the register states she was buried on November 26, 1934. In reality her death certificate states this was the day she died in New York City, and the interment took place in Pittsburgh on November 29.                                                                      

 

This article, a revision of a chapter in a book listed at the end, will discuss her history. In the record she left she is sometimes Margaret, sometimes Mae, but later (with variations) settled down as Margaretta. For consistency we will stay with the latter for this article, unless reproducing something that uses a variation.

According to the 1900 census, she was born in March 1854. She gave her testimony and spiritual life story at the Niagara Falls convention in 1907 which readers can easily check in the convention report. At the Praise and Testimony meeting led by John A Bohnet on Sunday morning, November 1, she outlined her brother, CTR’s story.

She dated her own coming to a knowledge of the truth to “about thirty three years” before, which would take us back to 1874, the year they would focus on for the beginning of Christ’s presence (parousia). She also stated that Charles, his father and herself were baptized that year, after coming to understand the true import of baptism. She outlined how Charles at the age of 17 requested a letter of dismissal from the Congregational church, which would be around 1869, the year CTR was drawn to the “dusty and dingy” Quincy Hall in Lacock Street and heard Jonas Wendell speak. She goes on with her lengthy testimony, well expressed, and it is perhaps surprising that this is the only statement to be preserved from her. As such, it is the only record we have for certain events, so we have to depend on the memory of the single witness for the information.

At some point in the mid-1870s she married Benjamin Franklyn Land, a cabinet maker who worked in the Pittsburgh firm, Getchell and Land. Benjamin appears to have shared the Russells’ religious beliefs at this time. George Storrs, editor of The Bible Examiner visited a “small but noble band of friends” in Pittsburgh in May 1874. In the June issue of his magazine he listed the names of those who had requested literature, probably for distribution.. From The Bible Examiner, June 1874, page 288.

Familiar names from Pittsburgh were Wm H Conley (2 parcels), G D Clowes Sen., and J L Russell and Son (by Express). But slotted in between Clowes and Russell is B F Land. We must assume that this was Margaretta’s husband or soon-to-be husband.

By the 1880 census the Lands have two children, Ada (born November 1875) and Alice (born November 1878). Another, Joseph Russell Land (born June 1880) was on the way. A fourth child, May (sometimes called Thelma), would be born in February 1886, the year The Plan of the Ages came out. The 1900 census clearly shows that Margaretta and the children were living in Pittsburgh when May was born. A Benjamin F Land is still in Pittsburgh trade directories as a carpenter up to 1888, although this may have been his father.

At some point disaster hit the family. Around 1954 an elderly Joseph Russell Land gave a testimony at a Bible Students’ gathering, which was recorded. His personal memories included living at CTR’s home and also the breakup of his parents’ marriage. He didn’t take any real interest in Bible Student matters until he was an adult when, more out of curiosity than anything else, he went to hear his uncle speak after seeing an advertisement. But as to his childhood years, he made these comments:

“I only lived with Pastor Russell for one year, and that was with my sisters and my mother from 1887 to 1888, that was when I was passing from 7 to 8 years old, and all I can remember of that was that we were told not to go around – it was in a large house on a hill then - the Pastor didn’t have the Bible House then – we children were told not go around on that side of the house where Pastor Russell had his study, probably writing the volumes…We didn’t go around on that side to bother him any.

“My dear mother being Pastor Russell’s sister, was one of the first to come into the truth…My mother had just left my father in Colorado Springs in 1887, and come to Allegheny with we four young children, and we stopped with Pastor Russell for about a year and he took care of us.”

Reading between the lines, Joseph painted a picture of Margaretta as a forceful character, somewhat obsessed with the great time of trouble “just around the corner,” that he believed had a deterimental affect on him as a child. But he conceded that her situation may have had a bearing on that:

“It was a great time of trouble for a woman to have four children, and no husband, to raise back in those days.”

We do not know why Margaretta’s marriage failed. Taking her son’s words literally it was Margaretta who left Benjamin. It has not been possible to trace what happened to him, but by the 1900 census Margaretta is listed as a widow.

Living in the expanded Russell household would have been a difficult time for everyone. Two forceful women in the same household, Margaretta and Maria, would not be easy. Years later Maria Russell would make accusations against her sister-in-law in the Russell vs Russell court case of 1907. These were put to CTR and quoting from page 229 of the transcript, his cross-examination by Maria’s counsel went as follows:

Q:  You know that Mrs Land was more or less offensive to Mrs Russell?

A:  I did not, sir, and do not know any reason why she should be.

Q:  Mrs Land had lived with you before, when you and Mrs Russell had lived together?

A:  Yes, sir.

Q:  And there was a constant source of trouble between you and Mrs Russell about your sister?

A:  No, sir.

Q:  And did not Mrs Russell finally insist that Mrs Land should leave the house?

A:  No, sir, not that I remember of.

Q:  Well, she did leave the house.

A:  Of course, she left the house, and Mrs Russell left the house too; Mrs Land moved down to her father’s, down in Florida, she moved at that time.

Margaretta and her children moved to Florida to be with her father, Joseph Lytle Russell. Referring to this time in Florida Joseph Russell Land also testified that when she was “up against it” CTR was “always ready to send her help.” We assume that Charles Ball and then his sister Rose moved into the Russell household after Margaretta and the children had left, although there could have been overlap. But then in due course CTR and Maria moved into the Bible House. According to the history marker at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Hall this was in 1894.

Joseph Lytle ultimately came back from Florida to Pittsburgh and died in a Cedar Avenue property in December 1897.

Prior to his death Joseph Lytle wrote a new will in July 1896 (witnessed by E C Henninges, J A Bohnet and Mrs O A Koetitz) which made a bequest to Margaretta (a house, three lots and 25 acres of land in Florida) as well as providing for his wife and daughter, Emma and Mabel. Emma was to inherit two houses, another lot and various stocks and notes that she later claimed were worthless and Mabel inherited a house and another lot. CTR was named as executor. This became a bone of contention as perhaps evidenced by the three witnesses having to sign another statement in October 1897 that Joseph Lytle was of “sound mind and memory” when they witnessed the will. Joseph Lytle left certain unspecified debts, and Emma argued later that her Cedar Avenue property could not be sold to pay these debts before all the other bequests had been used up.

It did not make for a very happy extended family.

In the 1900 census Margaretta was still in Florida and now listed as a widow. Her eldest daughter Ada had gone, having married a Thomas Wells in 1895. The marriage would end in divorce and she later married a C H White. However, the other three of her children were still at home, Alice was a school teacher, Joseph a cigar maker, and May was still at school.

She soon returned to Pittsburgh and worked at the Bible House. She is featured in various events over the first decade of the twentieth century. We will review these in date order.

In testimony for the above quoted Russell vs. Russell hearing of 1907 (transcript page 90), daughter Alice Land testified that she had both lived in and worked at the Bible House for about six years. We can assume from this that Margaretta and the two daughters went back to Pittsburgh to be part of the Bible House family from about 1901. Unlike some of the other workers they lived on the premises for some of the time, although the Russell vs Russell 1907 transcript states they had one room for the three of them (second floor front) in the house Maria occupied on Cedar Avenue (see transcript page 225).

Maria and the Cedar Avenue property came to the fore in 1903, when Margaretta was mentioned in connection with CTR’s domestic troubles. In that year, CTR reclaimed the house that his estranged wife, Maria was living in at 79 Cedar Avenue, Pittsburgh (now renumbered as 1004). Maria had left Charles in 1897, first going to her brother Lemuel in Chicago, and then on return to Pittsburgh to her sister Emma’s home. Emma had inherited 80 Cedar Avenue (now renumbered as 1006) from her late husband, Joseph Lytle Russell. Today there is a history plaque on the property, acknowledging his original ownership. It should be noted that the two houses were a duplex, two homes that shared a middle wall. It was one of a long series of ornate 19^th century row houses, all connected together along Cedar Avenue with a beautiful park on the opposite side of the street. All of the homes as well as the park appear today almost as they did 150 years ago.

As noted above, Maria lived first with Emma at number 80, but when the tenants at number 79 moved out, Maria took it over and lived there with her mother for several years. This is where her mother Selena Ackley died in 1901. The paper trail on the property is unclear, and it may be that it technically belonged to the Watch Tower Society by this time, but as far as Maria was concerned it belonged to her husband and his actions showed he believed that too. The three story home was large so Maria also generated income by renting out rooms. When she used her extra money to publish a tract highly critical of CTR he took the house back in 1903, and put Margaretta in charge of the property. A room was offered Maria on a legal footing, but perhaps not surprisingly she simply chose to move back in with her sister Emma next door on the left side of the duplex.

In 1907 CTR wrote his last will and testament, signed and witnessed on June 29, 1907. It was printed in full in the December 1, 1916, Watch Tower, and also in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper for November 29, 1916. Margaretta was mentioned in connection with the funeral arrangements.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUNERAL
“I desire to be buried in the plot of ground owned by our Society, in the Rosemont United Cemetery, and all the details of arrangements respecting the funeral service I leave in the care of my sister, Mrs. M. M. Land, and her daughters, Alice and May, or such of them as may survive me, with the assistance and advice and cooperation of the brethren, as they may request the same.”

 Mrs. M. M. probably stands for Margaret Mae or may even be a misprint; other records at this time give her full name as Margaret (or Margaretta) Russell Land. Daughter May (as Mae F Land) was one of the witnesses. Margaretta, Alice and May were all still working at the Bible House at the time.

During this time, she appeared in photographs taken at the Bible House. Below are two that date from around 1907. The one on the left is part of a group photograph taken in the Bible House Chapel, and on the right she is in the Bible House dining room.

In November 1907 she gave her detailed testimony at the Niagara Falls convention that we have discussed earlier.

In December 1908 the Watch Tower carried an advertisement for a booklet, The Wonderful Story of God’s Love. Written by Margaret Russell Land this was an illustrated poem, not to be confused with a similarly titled work by Maria Russell published in booklet form back in 1890.

But then she disappears from the regular narrative.

There are two possible explanations for this. One is that in 1909 a rift occurred over a change made by CTR over the understanding of the New Covenant. This caused some to separate from the Watch Tower. It resulted in two new groups of Bible Students, although they were separated by geography more than belief. The better known one was in Australia with Ernest Henninges and his wife, the former Rose Ball. But the American one resulted in several well known names leaving association with Watch Tower. They included M L McPhail, the hymn writer, and also Albert E Williamson. Albert had been a Watch Tower Society director and his twin brother Fredrick was Margaretta’s son in law, having married her daughter Alice.

Some have suggested that Margaretta may have supported this breakaway movement with other family members, although we lack documentary proof of this. Or it may simply be that the 1909 move from Pittsburgh to Brooklyn caused her to relocate back to the warmer climate of Florida to be near family members.

When CTR died she was featured in a news item intending to travel to the funeral. From the Tampa Bay Tribune (Florida) for November 2, 1916:

This is a typical effort of a junior reporter of the day. She may have intended to go to Brooklyn rather than Pittsburgh for the first part of the funeral arrangements – we just don’t know because she’s not mentioned in the actual reports – but it is a revelation that CTR died on a ranch rather than a train!

Margaretta was supposed to be responsible for CTR’s funeral arrangements according to his last will and testament, but that was back in 1907 and much water had gone under the bridge since then. For example, editorial committee nominee John Edgar had been dead for six years. There is anecdotal testimony that she may have wanted funds for her expenses to attend the funeral, but since she had inherited a house, three lots, and 25 acres of land in Florida from her late father, and also had a family of four adult children who could have helped her, that doesn’t seem realistic. Whatever happened, it is assumed that she did attend the funeral, although the newspaper reports (including the St Paul Enterprise) do not mention her. They do, however indicate that Maria and Emma attended.

There is, however, a photograph that long tradition identifies as her at the side of her brother’s grave prior to interment. She is supposed to be the female figure on the right, standing on her own rather than with other women higher up the hill.

Without corroborating evidence this just remains an unverified possibility.

After CTR’s death, Margaretta lived out her life in Florida near daughters Ada (Mrs Ada F White) and May (Mrs C Rea Kendall) until the year of her death, at which point she moved to New York where daughter Alice Williamson looked after her. But then at death she returned to Pittsburgh and was buried beside CTR. There was no notice of her passing or funeral in the Pittsburgh papers, but she did get an obituary in the Tampa Bay Times for November 29, 1934.

 

Again we appear to have the less than accurate efforts of a junior reporter. Her age is wrong, she was 80, she hadn’t been there for a continuous 40 years, and Mrs Williamson was not the sister of CTR, but Margaretta was. All par for the course.

So Margaretta obviously had a long standing claim to the grave space beside her brother. This was the only burial on the Society’s site throughout the 1930s. The grave remains unmarked. It may be that no-one really remembered her in Society history by then, or perhaps her family in Florida and New York did not see the need, especially if they were never going to visit.

Note: this material is adapted from a chapter in the book GRAVE MATTERS published by Lulu books.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? (2)

With apologies to The Sound of Music.

The title of this series has the appendage 2, because it has been used before – for a series of articles published back in 2020 on Maria Frances Ackley’s history before she married CTR. Those articles were:

1. The family background.

2. The early years.

3. After 1870.

They can easily be checked by using the search facility.

This new series of articles is designed to cover Maria’s history after she severed contact with the Watch Tower Society and separated from her husband. Again there are three parts:

1.  Examining Maria’s claims to have co-written Millennial Dawn.

2. The Twain One. A review of Maria’s book on “women’s rights.”

3. The later years. Maria’s history up to her death in 1938.

Maria 1 - Maria Russell and Millennial Dawn

On March 14, 1938, The Tampa Bay Times (Florida) carried the obituary of Maria Frances (Ackley) Russell, the wife of CTR, who had outlived him by over 20 years. Several other Florida newspapers carried the same story. The surviving relatives included some Packards (descendants of her sister Emma), the Raynors (descendants of her sister Laura) and the Ackleys (descendants of her brother Lemuel). There were no living descendants of her other sister, Selena Barto. Maria was the final survivor of her generation of Ackleys.

The obituary specifically claimed that Maria had been co-author of the early editions of Millennial Dawn with her husband Charles T (Deacon?) Russell. This article will examine that claim. But first we need to cover quite a bit of background.

Maria had married CTR (Charles Taze Russell) back in March 1879. Well over a year later, her younger sister, Emma, married CTR’s widowed father, Joseph Lytle Russell. Maria was to assist her husband in his religious work, although the extent and nature of that help was to be disputed later on.

Writing in 1906, after a lengthy separation had been put on a legal footing, CTR described his marriage as he saw it. In Zion’s Watch Tower (ZWT) for July 15, 1906, he wrote under the heading: THIRTEEN BLISSFUL YEARS:

“The starting of the paper (ZWT) was delayed until July, 1879, and this left me for several months continuously at Allegheny, where, in addition to the usual meetings, I conducted several series of meetings in the interest of the public in this vicinity.

Considerable numbers were brought in contact with the Truth at this time. Amongst others was a Maria Frances Ackley, who became my wife within three months of her first attendance at these meetings, which was the beginning of our acquaintance. The Truth seemingly appealed to her heart, and she assured me it was what she had been seeking for many years --the solution of perplexities of long standing. For thirteen years she was a most devoted and loyal wife in every sense of the word.”

This would take us through to the first half of the 1890s. During this time, CTR gave Maria a number of roles. He made her a director and secretary-treasurer of the incorporated Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society in 1884.  She wrote articles for ZWT. She managed correspondence for the paper until Rose Ball was trained to take over. And in 1894 he sent her out as a speaker to represent him in concerns discussed in A Conspiracy Exposed (1894). This speaking tour was reported to be highly successful. When they were in harmony CTR rightly called her (as above) “a most devoted and loyal wife in every sense of the word.”

Maria could be a feisty character by all accounts, used to handling responsbility from her long years of keeping order in the classroom. In her school career in the 1870s there had been at least one issue. The Pittsburgh Daily Post for 19 January 1878 relates how she was accused of assaulting a pupil. When CTR’s sister Margaretta and her four children were given shelter by CTR in 1887-1888 there was friction between the two women (See Russell vs Russell 1906 page 229 – all references hereafter taken from the typed transcript rather than the Paper Book of Appellant for 1906 and then the typed transcript for 1907). When Rose Ball became a member of the Russell household there was a suggestion that Maria sometimes worked Rose rather hard and made her cry (1906 – page 134).

The implications may be unfair, but Maria comes over as strong-willed, and as the perceived roles of women and wives evolved in society in general, one can start to undertand the issues that would affect the Russells’ marriage in the 1890s.

As CTR saw it, in the 1890s Maria started to change. Influenced by two of her sisters Emma and Laura, she increasingly espoused newer views on women’s rights.

The issue of women’s rights was featured prominently in a series of articles in the July 1893 double issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. The title of the series was ‘Man and Woman in God’s Order.’

There is no author given, but it is hard to imagine that Maria did not have some hand in this series. It started by stating that Paul’s words had often been misunderstood and “fostered a spirit of doubt as to his divine inspiration, and thus proved a stepping stone to Infidelity. Such doubts having once gotten control of the mind are apt to lead to the extreme of so-called Woman’s Rights – forcing some to an extreme on that side of the question as others have gone to an extreme on the opposite side: making women mere slaves, drudges or entertainers for men – or erroneously supposing that the apostle so taught.”

The series endeavored to steer a balanced course between the two extremes in society.

In this era, the legal system along with cultural norms of the day had long disadvantaged women, but the times they were a’changing.  Maria’s stance on women’s rights hardened and problems arose as a result. In 1906, at the time she was embroiled in legal action against CTR, she crystallized her views in a small book The Twain One (based on the “twain becoming one flesh” in the KJV rendering of Mark 10 v.8).

The Twain One quoted liberally from John Stewart Mills’ The Subjection of Women. For an assumed Christian readership it had a strong message – wives were in subjection to their husbands but only if they judged them “fit.” The Bible’s counsel about women not being teachers and remaining silent in the congregation did not apply to the church in general. And a favorite role model in the book for Maria was Sarah who had no compunction about telling Abraham what she thought. When Maria lived out this conviction in practice, as CTR saw it, there were problems. For example, he related how on one occasion in the 1890s she took over his study and prevented him from working for a whole morning while insisting that she read to him then and there three articles she’d just written on Solomon (1906 – page 162). Then after the midday meal she continued the dialog by following him into another office in Bible House where they now lived.  Maria’s attorney did not challenge this discription. In the 1880s they lived in a large house on Clifton Avenue, but according to a history marker near the site in Pittsburgh they moved into Bible House in 1894. In Clifton Avenue there was room to breathe and for issues to dissipate, but in the confined living quarters of Bible House such a scenario was far less manageable. 

As CTR told it, problems really came to the fore when as editor he made slight changes to her ZWT articles. He insisted he never changed the sense, but Maria disagreed. When she wrote material that he flatly disagreed with then he refused to publish it – as sole editor that was his perogative. This was indicated in an exchange between Maria’s counsel and CTR in the 1906 hearing (page 161).

Q.  About the only trouble you had with your wife over the editorship of this paper was as stated by your wife, that she wanted the articles to go out as she had written them, and you wanted them changed to meet your views?

A.  No, sir; that wouldn’t be a proper statement. The proper statement would be this, that I never conceded that she had an editorship in the paper. I was the editor of the paper all the time. I never conceded anything else. But as long as she was in harmony with me I would read over – if she wrote an article I would read it, and if I found it satisfactory, or nearly so, I might make a change of a word or two, but it would not be my intention to make the article read the opposite of what it was written.

The situation was never resolved and just got worse. He refused to accept her articles for the last six months they were together, and finally in November 1897 Maria left him and Bible House and never went back.

She first went to Chicago to visit her brother, Lemuel, a lawyer who could no doubt provide legal advice. On returning to Pittsburgh she went to live with her sister Emma at 80 Cedar Avenue, in the house Emma inherited after her husband Joseph Lytle Russell died. When tenants moved out of the adjoining house in the duplex, Maria moved in next door to number 79. CTR paid the taxes on this property and supplied some furniture. He also visited her a few times but this soon ceased. They could just have continued quietly living at separate addresses. It was a large house with ten rooms and she let out rooms to boarders – one account suggests she had six living there at the time problems kicked off.

The way events played out showed there were disagreements about money between the Russells (father and son) and the Ackley sisters. Maria and Emma had married into the Russell family and both had financial concerns. Emma was well provided for by her elderly husband Joseph Lytle Russell, but when he made a new will towards the end of his life, which included additional bequests to his surviving children there were difficulties. An attempt was made to claim that he was not of sound mind. In October 1897 the three witnesses to his last will and testament had to sign that Joseph was of “sound mind and memory” before he died in the December.

In the case of Maria, she had gone from single schoolteacher on a modest salary to wife of a prosperous merchant. They lived well. We have already indicated that their house on Clifton Avenue was large enough to accommodate CTR’s sister and her four children in 1887-1888. Later Charles and Rose Ball came to stay. The Russells had staff, including a gardener and a live-in maid, Emily (1906 – page 178). But as more resources were put into the ministry work of Zion’s Watch Tower Society, Charles and Maria moved into quarters in Bible House in 1894. As already noted, this would have required considerable adjustment and it was around this time that troubles in the marriage really came to the surface.

CTR’s assets were eventually donated to the Watch Tower Society, and as he stressed, this was something both he and Maria had agreed on originally. In exchange he received a small allowance, board, lodging and expenses, along with voting shares as president of the Society. This allowed him to both continue and defend his life’s work. For an estranged wife who no longer believed as he did, this was not going to end well. She would want a piece of the pie, and he would want to protect his religious work. He viewed some of Maria’s financial claims as a direct attack on what he held dear.

In the 1900s it all got worse and spilled out into public view. In 1903 Maria put her financial concerns into print and circulated them. She now claimed in writing that she had been co-writer with CTR of the first few books in the Millennial Dawn series. She was owed.

An article in Zion’s Watch Tower lit the fuse. It was in the 1 November 1902 issue and entitled “Insanity of the Doukhobors.” It discussed the Russian immigrants now in America and Canada and the issues of their assimilation. The key message was “conscience is a dangerous thing unless instructed by God’s Word and thus guided by the spirit of a sound mind.” A mix of targets followed the Doukhobors including militant vegetarians and Seventh Day Adventists. But then CTR wrote:

“As an illustration of a misguided conscience and its baneful effect in social affairs

we mention the case of an editor's wife. She at one time took pleasure in assisting him in his work. By and by a deluded and misguided conscience told her that God wished her to be editor in chief and publish what she pleased. When the editor demurred that he dare not abandon his stewardship, the deluded conscience told its owner that she should no longer co-operate, but more, that she should break her marriage covenant in deserting her husband and home, and that she should say all manner of evil against him falsely, until such time as he would yield to her the liberties of the journal – which her conscience told her was God's will.

The moral of all such lessons is, "Be not wise above what is written." "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,--rightly dividing the Word of truth."

CTR would later testify that this could apply to a dozen men he knew, but admitted he’d had Maria in mind. He’d mentioned no names but Maria took it very personally. She produced a 16 page booklet in response entitled Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower and Millennial Dawn: Attention! in which she certainly named HIM.  She sent it to everyone she could think of. In it, she stated that she was “not receiving a dollar…from the literary work so largely hers.” (bold print mine).

In this booklet, Maria acknowledged that CTR’s message contained truth. Since she was claiming to be co-author of his books she could hardly do otherwise, but “the fact that some hold the truth in unrighteousness does not invalidate the truth now any more than of old. Though the scribes and pharisees whom Jesus described a whited sepulchres, full of all manner of uncleanness, held and taught the divine law, that law remains as pure today as if they had never touched it. And so it is of all truth that is God’s truth.”

It was hardly conciliatory.

This very personal attack was funded by Maria running a lodging house in the Cedar Avenue property. It prompted immediate action. CTR took the Cedar Avenue house back and put his sister, Margaretta, in charge of it. Maria could have stayed there on a proper legal basis; she was offered her own room and full board, but perhaps understandably she simply chose to move back next door with her sister, Emma. As noted above, Maria and Margaretta had lived under the same roof in earlier years but the two women just hadn’t got along. The change of control of the property was messy and reported on a daily basis by the Pittsburgh newspapers of the day. At one point one of Maria’s lodgers declared his wish to spend the rest of his life with her, and this all must have been the final nail in the coffin of any prospects of reconciliation between the parties.

Maria then went to law to seek a legal separation and lawfully establshed support. The case came for trial in 1906, and there was a subsequent hearing in 1907 to try and increase the alimony.

It might be useful at this point to establish just exactly what Maria was after. It was not to end the marriage. A complete divorce would not have provided her with material support, and would probably have gone against her religious convictions. Maria likely believed the only scriptural grounds for divorce was adultery (Matthew 5 v.31) and she would specifically stress that this was not charged (1906 – page 10).

What she went for and eventually obtained was officially called a mensa et thora.

For the details we have to go to the Villanova Law Revew Volume 15, issue 1 (1969) article 8, entitled Grounds and Defenses to Divorce in Pennsylvania and written by Robert A. Ebenstein.

A mensa et thora means divorce from bed and board, and is normally abbreviated as a.m.t. This is in contrast to what would be understood as a complete dissolution of a marriage called a vinculo matrimonii (abbreviated to a.v.m.). Ebenstein wanted the law changed to remove a.m.t. from the statute books. He wrote on the limitations and problems with it. “Divorce a.m.t. is only available to the wife; and unlike the situation in divorce a.v.t. the libellant need not be an innocent and injured spouse. Also, the parties to divorce a.m.t. cannot remarry since they have been granted what is in effect a legal separation…The only reasons for choosing a legal separation would appear to be vindictiveness, a desire for alimony, and to encourage a later reconciliation.” It was also noted that some with religious objections to divorce might choose this route.

This type of separation Maria went for could only be sought by the wife, not the husband; crucially she did not have to prove her own absense of fault, and if granted, neither party was free to re-marry. As acknowledged by Maria above, the scriptural grounds for a full divorce did not apply, so that just left the three possible reasons for the action, vindictiveness, alimony or potential reconcilliation. The way things went down indicates alimony as the main motivating factor.

However, legally the terms of a mensa et thora are quite clear. Neither party could remarry. In that sense, they were still married to each other, and this is how Maria was presented to the world up to and including her own obituary. Ebenstein presents such a case as “in effect, a legal separation.”

So Maria’s objectives were financial.

There may have been a secondary concern, the desire to publish her own books, but that was hampered by monetary concerns. This exchange (1907 – page 138) explains:

Q.  Have you written for publication anything since you and Mr Russell separated?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  What was it?

A.  I have written one book, and I have others on the way, but I have not the means to publish it.

Did Maria want to establish herself as an independent theological voice? Perhaps. But as discussed in Zion’s Watch Tower for 15 July 1906 (reproducing some of her correspondence) she’d previously suggested that CTR was the “faithful slave” of Matthew 24 v.45.  However, since the “twain (were) one” she too would be part of that “slave” – that is, until CTR disagreed with her. Then she revised her opinion and CTR became “the evil slave.” One wonders, theologically, where that left her.

Nonetheless, looking at her statements and actions, her chief motivation still seems to be pecuniary, both to publish her own materials as well as live in reasonable comfort. The Dawn books were selling in the millions. She was entitled. This was shown by the wording of the complaint she put in writing in 1903.  Quoting again, she was “not receiving a dollar…from the literary work so largely hers.”

The 1907 hearing was therefore all about money. What resources did CTR have personally as opposed to what was now donated to the Watch Tower Society and untouchable? What level of alimony could she claim? To maximise her petition, Maria tried to establish that first - CTR still had plenty of personal assets, and second - that she had been an integral contributor to his financial success – obviously not as a successful merchant, but as a writer. She said they had worked together on the Millennial Dawn series and her imput was at least equal to his and in some cases a lot greater. He said the ideas and theology was his alone, that “she had no knowledge of the subject, because it was new to her” (a quote we will return to later). But he recognized that she gave him valuable assistance.

We can note his own acknowledgement of this in the original preface of The Plan of the Ages, which stayed in place for about the first ten years of publication from 1886.

So Maria rendered valuable assistance which was readily acknowledged. He called her “his help-meet – to whom (he was) indebted for valuable assistance rendered in this connection.” However, the foreward – never disputed at the time - plainly describes one author, not two. Maria never disputed that at the time.

As for the subject being “new” to her, we must remember that when they married after knowing each other for less than three months, Maria had come from a Methodist Episcopal background. CTR, however, had spent the previous ten years with his own Bible study group, and had been greatly influenced by the Age to Come and Advent Christian movements, including individuals like Jonas Wendell, George Stetson, George Storrs and Nelson Barbour. Maria never knew any of these men. Their influence in varous ways fuelled the message in the fledgling Zion’s Watch Tower, as well as material like Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return which pre-dated Maria, as did articles in magazines like Storrs’ Bible Examiner and Barbour’s Herald of the Morning. Maria’s contributions tended to be devotional rather than doctrinal. While CTR’s theology would continue to evolve in some of the details, he would seem justified in claiming authorship of the main IDEAS promoted in Millennial Dawn.

To maximise her claim for alimony, Maria was to make four basic claims in court which at worst were patently false, or at the very least, showed a faulty memory of events.

First: she claimed that the idea for Zion’s Watch Tower had been a joint venture between husband and wife from the very beginning, and even before they were married. Second: that generally only she and Charles had written for the paper. Third: that her name had been on the title page of the volumes originally. Then of course fourth: the claim that she had personally written at least half, and in some cases more, of the first few volumes of Millennial Dawn.

In reality, on the first point, CTR had announced the proposed advent of his paper in Barbour’s Herald magazine in February 1879. Allowing for the time it would take to go from composition to print this could well have been written before CTR ever met Maria in the latter half of December 1878.  But it is true that they were in unison once the need for a new paper became apparent and a proposed companion paper soon became a rival.

But then, the second point, describing the new title, Maria made the claim (1907 – page 119) that it was normally just she and CTR who wrote for the paper. Her actual words:

“Mr Russell and I were the ony ones that ever wrote for it, except for a few who wrote occasionally…There were very few other articles except his and mine that were ever admitted to the paper.”

Just one look at the early ZWTs shows this to be completely untrue. The masthead from the very first issue had CTR as the sole editor and listed the main regular contributors.

This continued for some time, and Maria’s name is no-where to be seen. The regular contributors often signed off their articles with their initials, but the first appearance of any reference to “Sister Russell” or “Mrs C T Russell” is not until the January-February 1882 issue, although she may have provided anonymous copy before then. But so much for: “Mr Russell and I were the ony ones that ever wrote for it.”

Continuing to over-egg the pudding (as the British might put it), the third claim Maria made was that her name had been on the title page of the Millennial Dawn volumes, the ones she maintained she had co-written. The exchange wth her counsel (1907 – page 121) went as follows:

Q.  Did your name appear upon the title page of either of these publications?

A.  Of all of them, unless they have been taken off in recent years. I have not seen the recent editions.

This can be easily checked and her name no-where appears on any title page of any edition of Millennial Dawn. Come to that, neither did CTR’s name appear on any title page, but ony in the foreward reproduced above, which gave credit to Maria’s assistance.

Then fourth, there was the main claim that she had written over half of the first few volumes of Millennial Dawn. So as well as general alimony, maybe royalties could be added to the payoff.

As one would expect there was quite a different viewpoint between Maria and Charles on this. In the first hearing of 1906, Maria had suggested her major role, but it was in the 1907 hearing that both parties expressed how they saw matters. Maria first (page 120-121):

Q.  Who wrote the Millennial Dawn?

A.  Well, the books were written by myself and Mr Russell, all that Mr Russell wrote was submitted to me for examination; I laid the plans for each of these volumes, and I can testify that at least one-half of the work, and I think more, is mine.

CTR was quite adamant that the situation had been different (1907 – page 243):

Q.  Did she write any of the volumes?

A.  None of the volumes.

Q.  Did she write any of the chapters?

A.  She labored in connection with myself on some of the chapters, among other things, but she had no knowledge of the subject, because it was new to her….She co-labored in the arrangement, she read the proof and examined my manuscript, perhaps.

When asked why he had not corrected Maria’s similar claims in the 1906 hearing he replied that he had not been asked anything about it.

It should be noted that after Maria left, CTR continued writing: there were to be two more thick volumes of Millennial Dawn retitied as Studies in the Scriptures, a Photodrama of Creation scenario, nearly twenty more years’ worth of articles for Watch Tower and Bible Students Monthly, and innumerable newspaper sermons. He was highly prolific, without any input from Maria at all.

There is just one line of argument left to perhaps try and establish the reality. What might an analysis of writing styles show as to authorship? Interestingly, it was CTR himself who suggested readers could check this out for themselves. Continuing in the above cross-examination he said (1907 – page 244):

“If anyone will compare Mrs Russell’s new book which she published a few years ago with the Dawn, they will see a very different style in every sense of the word.”

CTR had bought a copy of Maria’s book The Twain One, and a 1906 review in the Pittsburgh Leader by “a minister” was based on an interview he had given about it.

But, dismissing CTR’s suggestion, at least one critic has tried to make the comparison in Maria’s favor. Back in the early 1970s a detractor of CTR published his own analysis of the first four volumes. The conclusion reached was that the standard of writing in volume four showed a considerable drop in quality when compared with the first three. The writer came to the ‘obvious’ conclusion – without help from Maria, CTR really struggled with volume 4.

There is one problem with this, and it is a BIG ONE.

In the hearing Maria claimed that while she wrote over half of volumes 1-3 she actually wrote THE WHOLE of volume 4 by herself (apart from just one chapter).  From 1907 – page 121:

“Of the fourth volume I wrote the entire volume except one chapter, but when seven chapters of that had gone to the printer, Mr Russell took offense and never wrote the balance of it; he finished it himself, so that is the way the fourth volume ended.”

So much for analysis.

In fairness, CTR acknowledged this in part. Volume 4 was made up from many quotations and Maria had kept the cuttings files. But he, CTR, had made the final decision as to what was used. The numerous quotations from different sources would also give an uneven feel to this volume, no matter who compiled it. In commenting on Maria’s words (1907 – page 213-214) he responded:

“I heard Mrs Russell’s testimony and noted in particular her reference to the fourth volume of the Millennial Dawn, her remark that a considerable portion of it, probably one-half, was her work…I answer that Mrs Russell did do considerable of the forepart of the fourth volume, because this is nearly all of it, the collection of clippings which we had been collecting for some years, and the large part of it, the report of the congress of religions held in Chicago, at the World Fair. I have no desire to belittle in any manner the assistance rendered me by my wife, but could not agree with her statement. I would have preferred to have said nothing on the subject but since it seems necessary to answer her, I would say that much of her work is of a kind that is done in nearly any office, proof reading, and the work of an amanuensis…At the time of Mrs Russell’s association with me, she was very willing indeed, and in very full sympathy with me, especially during the time of the first three volumes, and I have no doubt she would have been glad to have done a great deal more than she did do.”

We note that CTR gave Maria a certain amount of credit in this comment, while again explaining how he understood their previous working relationship. And in the 1906 hearing (page 112) he had been asked about her abilities:

Q.  Mrs Russell, I believe, is a very bright, intellectual woman, is she not?

A.  Yes, sir.

So what are we to take from all of the above? Maria assisted in the preparation of the first few volumes of Millennial Dawn; that is not in dispute. As to how much she assisted, both she and CTR saw it differently. But the volumes were always presented as his work not a joint work, although she was given fulsome credit for the help she gave in the original foreward. When they were in harmony she never disputed how matters were presented. His key argument – which is still valid – was that he was responsible for the content, because, as quoted above: “she had no knowledge of the subject, because it was new to her.”

After the hearings and the awarding of alimony, Maria could have just quietly got on with her life, but that was not to be. Sadly she continued to attack her husband on every possible occasion she could.  In the Russell vs. Brooklyn Eagle (Miracle Wheat) court case of 1913 she appeared for the Eagle, although her testimony was so inconsequencial it can only have been designed to cause her husband embarrassment. In the Ross libel case which shortly followed it, she is described as contacting the Ross camp and offering to travel to Canada to volunteer her services. (See The Victoria Daily Times for 23 January 1013). When she was interviewed in the Brooklyn Eagle for 6 May 1914 about a local Bible Student convention she was asked about rumors of possible reconciliation. Her response was unequivocal: “To seek…reconciliation and live with him was out of the question.” And even though she attended CTR’s funeral as his wife, the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper showed she still hoped to get more from his estate. The Eagle for 29 November 29 1916, carried the byline:

Note that she is clearly “the wife” who inherits a $200 bank account, but who also engages a lawyer to protect what she considers “her interests.” The text simply defines these as her “property rights.”

In due course in 1907, Maria was awarded her alimony – which settled on $100 a month. But she never did get any “royalties.” It could be argued that as sales of volumes often made a loss in endevours to spread the message, and as all proceeds went back into the work of the Watch Tower Society, that CTR never gained personal royalties either.

Maria's subsequent history is detailed in the blog article below: Maria – The Later Years.

At the end she owned a house in beautiful surroundings in Florida, and her last will and testament left substantial bequests to family members and friends. When the house last came on the market in the early 2020s it was valued at over one million dollars.

Ultimately, Maria didn’t do too badly.

Maria 2 - The Twain One (Mrs. Russell's Spicy Book)

In 1906, shortly before her suit for legal separation against her husband was heard, Maria Russell published a 100 page book on women’s rights.  It was called The Twain One, and was based on the scripture in Mark 10 v.8 (KJV) “and the twain shall be one flesh.”

CTR believed that it was differences of view on women’s rights that ultimately divided them, after more than a decade of happy marriage. It was obviously a subject Maria felt strongly about and she wrote in the book’s forward: “At the request of many friends who desire to see these thoughts before the public, and especially before Christians in general, the writer consents to their publication, although such was not the original intention.”

In view of this, one might question what the original intention was, since Maria did more than just consent, she published the book direct from her home address at 607 Birmingham Avenue, Avalon, Pittsburgh.

There were several reviews in the Pittsburgh newspapers. The first was in the Pittsburgh Press for 31 March 1906. Hidden away on page 11 it was a short and complementary review mainly quoting from the preface. Consequently it reads like Maria’s own press release, concluding: “The book, with so fine a purpose behind it, will doubtless find a good sale. The price is $1.”

Another review appeared the next month in the Pittsburgh Post for 14 April 1906, this time found on page 7:

This review stated that “it shows much research and has merit” although with the caveat “we would expressly forbear from commending or disapproving the positions taken” and “it is evident that some ulterior meaning haunts the positions assumed.” The book was now advertised as being sold at Pittsburgh book stores.

A brief review also appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for 11 June 1906, page 5:

This simplified Maria’s argument down to: “Man is required to obey God, servants are required to obey their masters, children their parents, but the wife need not obey her husband because “the twain are one.””

These small paragraphs tucked away inside the newspapers did not give the work a great amount of publicity; a casual reader could easily have missed all of them. However, that was all to change with a lengthy article in The Pittsburgh Leader. And this is the subject of this article.

The Pittsburgh Leader for Saturday, 13 October 1906 carried an announcement about a special feature in the magazine section of the Sunday paper out the next day, Sunday 14 October 1906.

It announced that Maria’s book – characterized as a “Spicy Essay” was going to be reviewed by “a Minister.”

That it was going to be a critical review was made clear by the heading in the Sunday paper.

The actual review ran to not far short of three thousand words. A complete transcript of the review is provided below, but first, who was “the Minister?”

The answer came out in a hearing in 1907 when Maria’s alimony was discussed. From the typed transcript of Russell vs. Russell (April 1907) on pages 244-250, CTR was asked directly if he was responsible for it? The answer was both a Yes and a No.

CTR had bought a copy of Maria’s book simply by sending one dollar to her address. Later a reporter named Cope had called on him and “asked my opinion about the book.”

He elaborated on page 245-246 of the hearing: “The reporter called on me, mentioned his subject and wished me to give him pointers, and I told him I preferred not to do so, but after the usual manner of reporters he was very insistent amd urged me to give him some pointers; I told him I had no wish to say anything against my wife in any sense of the word; he said, “Well, you can give me some pointers.” I said, “I do not mind to give you a few pointers,” and he said, “Well, I have to go out, and if you will just jot down a few of those points, I will be very much obliged.” So I jotted down a few points, and I presume he incorporated them in that article.”

CTR had been out of the city when the Leader was published and had not, in fact, seen the article “before this hour” when it was put to him at the hearing. His comment on reading it then and there was that the reporter – not him – “had put in a good many of the caustic features of it.”

The “caustic features” might include the introductory preamble before the article actually gets to the review by “a Minister.” Here, Maria’s complaint is summarised: married women’s advancement in the church and business has been greatly curtailed by “too frequent maternity.” Putting it bluntly, “greedy and sinful men” keep getting them pregnant.

Maria through her counsel accused CTR of being paid for the interview – flatly denied – of buying up copies of the paper to circulate – also flatly denied – and Maria when questioned directly accused CTR of interfering with the book’s sale. How he did this was not specified, but Maria noted that only 300 copies had so far sold. In reality, on the basis that all publicity is good publicity, the Leader article and review probably revived sales considerably for a short while. But as with most things, it soon became yesterday’s news.

Maria had further writings to publish but stated that she did not have the resources to do so. Later in life when she obviously had the means to publish, time had moved on and her views had changed from the general Bible Student position; hence it never happened. (For details, see the article below,a Maria – the Later Years).

 So here follows the complete text of “Mrs. Russell’s Spicy Book is Criticized.”

 

(Transcript)

Pittsburgh Leader

Sunday Morning October 14th, 1906

Special Magazine Section

 

MRS. RUSSELL'S SPICY BOOK IS CRITICIZED

"The Twain One" Reviewed by a Local Minister, Who Finds Fault With the Premises and Conclusions                          

(Box on page by article)

MRS. RUSSELL'S SPICY GEMS

"True happiness, in any human relationship, is incompatible with ignoble ideas both of tyranny and of servility."

"Paternal and filial love must respond to each other."

"Any subserviency to fellow man is a secondary consideration. We ought to obey God rather than man and this is manifestly right so we must oppose men when they are wrong."

"The duty of submission to those in leading positions in the church we regard not in the light of unquestioning childish or servile obedience, but simply as a matter of respectful deference."

"The servant is not in duty bound to please his master in all things except within the limit of his contract."

"Obedience of children to parents is expected by God, but for any tyrannical use of this parental authority to gratify a pride of power in the dominant parties will be punished by God. The command of obedience does not apply to children after they come to maturity."

"The Scriptures do not teach domestic slavery."

"Adam found in woman a companion capable of sharing all his joys.

"Nothing in the Scriptures indicates that woman was in the least inferior to man."

"God created man and woman with equal rights."

"Woman has become the weaker vessel through sinful man."

"He (man) often, selfishly taking advantage of the situation rules over her (woman) instead of treating her as an heir."

Quotations from Mrs. Russell's book, "Twain One."

 

(Text of editorial comment followed by review)

Marie Frances Russell, the wife of the celebrated Pastor Charles T. Russell, the North Side preacher, with congregations all over the world, has written a book which is of the "woman's rights" order. Those who have analyzed the work are of the opinion that Mrs. Russell has undertaken to sustain her position in applying for a divorce from bed and board and demanding alimony from her husband.

"The Twain One" is the title, and the green cloth cover binds all sorts of biblical quotations to sustain the contention of the author that a woman was created equal with man, with the same rights, and instead of being servile to man, woman was expected to be an heir of the land with him and share all his joys and returns from the soil. She launches into a tirade against sinful man and takes the stand that the decline of woman in influence and wealth is absolutely due to sinful and greedy man who, taking advantage of woman, has domineered over her to such an extent that woman is generations off her sphere.

Too frequent maternity, due of course to greedy and sinful man, has also prevented  from associating with others in the world so that she could progress mentally as rapidly as man. Instead, she has been compelled to stay in the house, raise children and, while man is recuperating in the fields and associating with his neighbors, "gathering strength the while," poor woman is debarred from what is divinely hers and sinful man is rubbing it in on her at a great rate. The time, apparently, is ripe for a change of all this, and woman should step into the church, business and even at home to demand what has been given her by God and "held out," to use the parlance of the day, by greedy, sinful, domineering man.

A review of the book by a minister follows:

"The title of this little volume would seem to imply a treatise respecting the oneness of union and mutual adaptability of the sexes to each other so as to produce the greatest amount of harmony or union. However, the writer does not, in our judgment, seem to approach the subject from this standpoint, but rather the reverse u 'the twain two.' The motif appears to be to disprove any special headship of the husband and hence to establish a double headship in every family. The thought of the writer seems to be the one that is now so common amongst so-called 'new women.' viz., that in the divine order men and women were by nature, and by grace intended to be onan absolute equality, mentally and physically, but that women, for centuries oppressed by men, have gradually grown weaker and weaker both in mind and in body until today that writer reluctantly admits men are stronger both mentally and physically. That we may do the writer no injustice on this point we quote:

"'They (Adam and Eve) stood on a par in God's estimation of his handiwork. It is manifest that God created them with equal rights when he gave the dominion of earth to them both originally' (p. 31.). 'Dr. H. S. Drayton tells us that while woman's brain is smaller than man's it is larger in proportion to the total weight of the body, and is more finely organized, so that in his opinion honors are about even.' (p. 37.)

"As proof of an acknowledged feminine inferiority of strength, mentally and physically, the author says: 'Woman's natural office of motherhood and home duties connected with it, the training of children, etc., which, under perfect conditions, as originally designed, could have brought only happiness and joy, instead under the conditions induced by sin, brought sorrow and the gradual physical weakening or decline The too frequent maternity often imposed upon her, regardless of proper conditions, has undermined the health of women generation after generation, while man, whose natural occupation has been more in the fields and in subduing the elements of nature, has gathered from nature more of its invigorating force and thus woman has become, by far, the weaker vessel.' (p. 36.) 'Thus the natural tendency of sin has been, not only to render woman a weaker vessel, but also to bring her under the power of her husband.' (p. 41.) Whatever the author may otherwise be she is evidently not a logician, as shown by the above quotations: for while she argues that the sexes are equal and should stand on a par every way she, in the different quotations, claims that women have become by far the weaker vessel – hence logically no longer on a par with males.

"But still more illogical is the proposition above quoted that women have become 'by far the weaker vessel' gradually for centuries as a result of the recognition of the headship of men. Would not even a novice in logic recognize the fact that such a claim is an absurdity; because every girl babe must receive of the strength, the virility of the father as every boy babe must partake of the weaknesses of his mother. If males begat males and females begat females we would could understand how the one sex could, in centuries, oppress and degrade the other; knowing that this is not the case, but that on the contrary nature equalizes and harmonizes the strength and weakness of both parents in the children, it follows that the author has failed to grasp her subject. She may not be aware, either, that in Europe for centuries women have labored in the fields and thus have employed the very conditions which she says has made the males superior in mental and physical strength.

"Far be it from the writer to inveigh against women or to deny women their properand opportunities.  We are even willing to concede, that in times past, under barbaric and semi-civilized conditions, women had not by any means the liberties and opportunities they should have had; but are not the same things true of the other sex? Have not the majority of men in the past been the merest serfs or slaves? Are we not to remember that only within the past century has Europe given to the males universal suffrage? Indeed, this boon of the family was not given to the English males until within a decade, and in Russia suffrage has only been granted to the males this very year under restrictions, somewhat similar to those which prevail in Germany, which give those not property owners a decidedly less voice in than others? Are we not to remember that free school education in Europe is only the matter of the past decade? What we should notice in this connection is that just in proportion as the males have gotten free from serfdom and ignorance in the very same proportion have the females of the same lands risen to civilization and education. These points appear to us to be too frequently overlooked by those studying or discussing so called women's rights.

"It is a fact that the twain are one by divine arrangement and by their creation. The sexes are so adapted the one to the·other that injury to either signifies proportionate loss to both. Hence the safe and sane of both sexes are practically agreed that the Almighty did not design the sexes to be exactly equal, either mentally or physically, but better far than this did design an adaptation between them, the one for the other, reprsented in the expression ‘a manly man and a womanly woman.’ We feel sure that the observance of this lasw of nature brings more joy than any amount of disputation or endeavor to prove that there is no difference between the sexes. Very few women would care to marry or expect to be happy with an effeminate man, and very few men would desire to marry or expect to be happy with a masculine wife.

“The author lays great stress upon the fact that women do not receive proper rescognition in the churches – evidently believing that no sex distinction should be recognised in the ministry. Although the consensus of opinion among Christian people for centuries has been that the special ministrations of religion should be in the hands of males, this apparently has no influence whatever with our author. She carefully culls every reference to women in the Old and New Testaments and makes the most of these to support her contention, but either innocently or intentionally omits all notice of the fact that Jesus Christ appointed no female apostles – the twelve were male and the subsequent seventy sent out were men; not was this because there were no women interested at this time, nor, as is seemingly hinted, the women of that day were so much more illiterate than the men. On the contrary, we have the apostolic statement to the effect that they were fishermen and tax-gatherers from the humbler walk of life and that, too, it was distinctly stated by the public in general that they were ignorant and unlearned men. (Acts IV:13). If ignorant an unlearned men could be qualified and used by the Christ as his representatives, could not the ignorant and unlearned women have been equally qualified for His service had He so designed. But on the contrary, have we not the information that some of the believing women of the time were of the higher class, styled “honorable women” – women of station, wealth and probably of education also.” See Luke VIII:3, Acts &VII:4-12. The same is true of the course pursued by the apostles. We have no record that they ever ordained women as elders in any of the churches they organized. Nevertheless they, both Jesus – and the apostles, were prompt to recognize, appreciate and utilize the womanly talents and qualities of the believers of that time, as we believe all Christian ministers are disposed to do to this day.

“The author of the “Twain One” certainly displays the craftiness of an expert attorney supporting an unjust case when she attempts to so interpret the words of the apostles respecting the deference or submission of the wife as the weaker vessel to the husband as the head of the family. With an attorney’s skill she arranges three different texts in order, placing first, one, the phraseology of which she could construe favorably, and then proceeds to apply the misfit interpretation to the others. For instance the following:

"'Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands as it is fit in the Lord." #Col 3:13 'Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the savior (preserver, caretaker) of the body. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.' #Eph 5:22-24

"Again she quotes, 'Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.'#lPe 3:1

"The veriest tyro in scriptural exegesis would surely be astonished at the cleverness of the misinterpretation of the first of these texts. The apostle says 'as it is fit in the Lord,' by this evidently meaning that women in the Christian church were to be submissive to their husbands as were the Jewish women, and not to consider that because they were now 'in the Lord' they were exempted from the proper responsibilities of wives. 'As it is fit' then evidently means, as it is proper, as it is right for those in the Lord to do. But our authoress gives a twist to the entire matter in these words. 'We must bear in mind this limitation of fitness. ' (P. 53). She proceeds to ring the changes of these words fit and fitness twelve times in her endeavor to nullify the force of the above quoted Scriptures by implying that the wives are to submit themselves to their own husbands not 'as it is fit' but rather as the wives may deem fit.

"Surely no sound mind could understand the apostolic injunctions above quoted to signify that wives were to be so submissive to their husbands that they would murder or steal or do other unlawful things. Fortunately, the average men andwomen have little difficulty in comprehending the scriptural advice on this subject, vis: that love should cement the marriage tie, that in the union the twain will be one, that the head of the united pair is the husband, whose delight as well as responsibility would be to look well after the interests, mental and physical, of his wife ready, if need be, to lay down his life for her protection. Fortunately, too, the majority of women appreciate just such headship as the apostles here indicate and these are the happy couples who best represent the "Twain One," and happy are the children who have parents thus mated in harmony with natural law and scriptural injunction.

"The advocates of 'women's rights' seem assuredly to be persons in whom the milk of human kindness have   soured sometimes through ambition and sometimes through fallacious reasoning! For instance they often tell us that the great colleges are for the men, that the women have no such opportunities for education. They tell us that the legislatures and courts are bound upon the grinding of woman into the dust, into the mire, and that it is necessary for women to step forth from the battles of motherhood and the home to battle for female suffrage and other rights.

"Fortunately for the world, the majority of the sex reason more soundly than this. Through education or by observation they learn that their husbands and fathers in the legislatures have framed most equitable laws in their interest, for their protection and safeguard, and that the courts are always more lenient toward women than toward men, and that they fare far better at the hands of a male jury than they would if tried before a jury of their own sex, and that the public schools and high schools are as open to the females as to the males, and that a proportionately larger number of the females than of the males are afforded high school opportunities and normal school privileges. They learn, also, that there is abundant provision for their sex in the female seminaries and colleges and that these, almost without exception, have been established and endowed by the opposite sex. We conclude that the majority of the sensible thinkers agree respecting the solidarity of the race – and that in the family and home the husband and wife are not to be twain, but one, and that in the responsibility for the family's care both human and divine law are right in holding the male to be the responsible head and caretaker.

"That the author is not ashamed of her work is evidenced by the fact that her name appears in the same six times."

(End of transcript)