The Ross Libel Case

 

 

 

In 1912, J J Ross, a Baptist clergyman in Canada, published a booklet “Some Facts about the Self Styled Pastor Russell.” It attacked CTR over a number of issues, including his marital problems, his business ventures and his ordination and education or lack of same.

CTR sued Ross, but the indictment got no further than the magistrates court. As a result, Ross published an expanded booklet with extracts from the court transcript, claiming that he “won” and CTR “lost”. The accusations made in this booklet, especially over whether CTR could read or understand Biblical Greek have been re-circulated down to this day. Opponents of CTR accuse him of perjury. Others reading the limited transcript available see a far more innocent explanation; one given by CTR at the time.

Regrettably, the full transcript of the key hearing, where CTR was cross-examined by George Lynch Staunton, is not currently available. Staunton’s copy does not appear to survive, nor that of J J Ross, and the one owned by the Watchtower Society was lost for many years, then reportedly rediscovered, then apparently mislaid again.

While it might give many interesting historical morsels in CTR’s testimony, it probably covered similar ground to other trials of the day involving CTR. This can be seen by examining how the newspapers of the day reported the proceedings.

What is noteworthy is that the reporters in court never picked up on any accusations approaching perjury. Any reference to CTR’s ability to read Greek, be it letters or language, was so peripheral it didn’t merit comment. In their minds the accusations made by Ross focussed more on CTR’s marital difficulties and ordination – subjects already raised by newspapers such as the Brooklyn Eagle, from where Ross’s original booklet admitted he had obtained most of his material. And crucially, the newspapers of the day explained why Ross was not found guilty. (One must always remember that in law it was Ross who was the defendant, not CTR).

The answer is given very clearly in the cutting at the head of this article. And it reflects what CTR himself said by way of explanation at the time.

When later asked about the case, CTR made his defense in the Watch Tower, September 15th, 1914, pp. 286-7 (reprints page 5543). This was a reproduction of a letter published in a newspaper in Trinidad, apparently in answer to Ross's second booklet. The key part is as follows:

(all underlining mine):

'I am quite familiar with the slanderous screed issued by Rev. J.J. Ross. In Canada they have just two laws governing libel. Under the one, the falsifier may be punished by the assessment of damages and money. Under the other, criminal libel, he is subject to imprisonment. I entered suit against Rev. Ross under the criminal act at the advice of my attorneys, because, as he had no property, a suit for damages would not intimidate him nor stop him. The lower court found him guilty of libel. But when the case went to the second judge he called up an English precedent in which it was held that criminal libel would only operate in a case where the jury felt sure that there was danger of rioting or violence. As there was no danger that myself or friends would resort to rioting, the case was thrown out. I could still bring my action for financial damages but it would be costly to me and impotent as respects Rev. Ross.'

(CTR then discusses at some length the issues raised on Biblical languages and ordination and presents his side of the case).

So CTR states he was advised to try for criminal libel, but because of an English precedent relating to resulting 'rioting' and 'violence', it was thrown out. The English law (obviously governing Canada at this time) is put simply in Reader's Digest Family Guide to the Law (1971 edition) page 675: (underlining mine):

'Libel is normally a civil wrong - what the law calls a 'tort' -·but it can be also a criminal offense if the prosecution shows that the libel caused, or was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Such prosecutions are rare because the person libelled normally prefers to seek damages in a civil action; for even if someone is found guilty of criminal libel the person defamed does not get any damages.'

In discussing how certain rare circumstances allow for criminal libel of the dead, it states:

'If the dead person is libelled in such a way that his relatives are understandably angered into a breach of the peace, the writer might be prosecuted for criminal libel.'

So the key point in law is, will the one libelled be likely to cause a breach of the peace, or will his relatives?

This is backed up by Stones Justice Manual, 1985 edition, Section 4-5671. After the definition of criminal libel, and various decisions on whether or not the dead could be so libelled, we have the British precedent to which CTR referred: (underlining mine):

(quote) Lord COLERIDGE CJ, directed a grand jury at Berkshire Assizes, Reading, February 1889, that there ought to be some public interest concerned, something affecting the Crown or in guardians of public peace, to justify the recourse by a private person to criminal libel by way of indictment. If either by reason of the continued repetition or infamous character of the libel a breach of the peace was likely to ensue, then the libeller should be indicted: but in the absense of such conditions, a personal squabble between two individuals ought not to be permitted by grand juries, as indeed it was not permitted by sound law to the subject of criminal indictment, and he invited them to throw out the bill, which, in accordance with his suggestion, was done (33 Sol Jo 250).

In summary – if no breach of the peace was actually caused by, or threatened by, the one libelled, a private individual bringing a charge of criminal libel would have it thrown out – irrespective of the merits of the case. Had CTR brought a civil action against Ross it may have been a different result. This is what he did with actions against the 'Washington Post' and Chicago 'Mission Friend' where both cases were decided in his favour. The issue of CTR’s 'divorce/separation' was common to all cases.

The whole object of the exercise was to silence Ross, and CTR wrote to him while the case was pending offering to withdraw the suit if Ross would discontinue his (quote) "injurious slanderous course". (See Watch Tower, October 1st, 1915). On this occasion the strategy backfired!

In hindsight it would appear that CTR received flawed legal advice to go for the rare charge of criminal libel, rather than civil libel as before.

In the Watch Tower for October 1st, 1915, when answering a question about why he, CTR, took someone to court, when Jesus didn't, he stated about the Ross case: "We are not certain that we did the wisest and best thing – the thing most pleasing to the Lord in the matter mentioned."

Scranton PA Tribune. May 1, 1897 (click the image to read all)

One more. This one from Chapter One

Another Page. This one from Chapter 5

These sample pages will give you an idea of what to expect, at least in apperance, and some idea of content. We don't have a release date yet, but we're hoping for near February 2014.

We have a major chapter to finish, followed by a thorough edit and re-write. We don't know if there will be an index with the first volume or if that comes with volume 2.

Pages will look like this ...

These are from chapter 7 of the new book.

The List

Mr. Schulz made this list for someone else. I think it may be interesting to you too. It's a short description of the chapters to be found in volume 1 of the next book:

Chapter one considers Russell family antecedents and C. T. Russell’s childhood with some reference to his business ventures. We draw heavily on Russell’s accounts as scattered through the pages of the Watch Tower and Convention Reports, public and church records.

Chapter two takes us into his meeting with Wendell, Stetson and others. We provide extensive biographies of Wendell and Stetson and more brief notices of others Russell met between 1869 and 1874. We define the difference between Age-to-Come (One Faith) belief and Adventism and explore which most influenced Russell’s associates. Among those we profile and whose interactions with Russell and his associates we explore are George Darby Clowes, John T. Ongley, and George W. Cherry. We explore Stetson’s shift from Adventism to One Faith belief. Photos of the hall Wendell first spoke in and the one in which Russell met him and copies of newspaper notices and similar matters illustrate this chapter

Chapter three considers interaction with Storrs. We present an extensive biography of Storrs, emphasizing his shift from Millerite Adventism to Age-to-Come belief. This discussion is drawn from contemporary records. We also consider the Russells interactions with Eleazer L. Owen, Seventh-day Adventists and Christadelphians. We detail the history of the One Faith congregation that grew out of Wendell’s visit. We consider claims made about Russell’s view of William Miller and his connections to other, non-Adventist millenarians.

Chapter four considers the formation of the Bible Class, following the trail of their doctrinal development and connecting it to contemporary persons and articles. We discuss in some detail William Conley’s background, his connections to Peters and others, and his doctrinal differences with Russell. We leave the history of their separation and Conley’s shift to faith-cure advocacy to volume two.

Russell describes their doctrinal development several times. Combining his various statements we outline the salient points as: 1. End of the age; 2. Second Probation; 3. Ransom and Atonement; 4. Parousia and Restitution; 5. Restoration of the Jews; 6. World Burning; 7. Baptism; 8. Resurrection; 9. End-times chronology and prophetic framework; 10. The Trinity; 11. Devil and Demons; 12. Great Pyramid, and 13. Other doctrines including congregation “ordinances.” We connect their study to contemporary events, discussions and articles in journals we know they read or tracts by people they knew.

Chapter five considers Russell’s introduction to the Barbourite movement. It profiles the principals and discusses his meeting with Barbour in Philadelphia and his meeting with Paton in Pittsburgh. There is some newspaper documentation of Barbour’s activity in Philadelphia. This chapter presents a thorough biography of Paton and biographies of those most prominent among Herald of the Morning readers: Benjamin Wallace Keith; Samuel Howe Withington; Ira and Lizzie (Elizabeth) Allen; Avis M. Hamlin. It ends with a consideration of the social milieu and Russell’s commitment to the work.

Chapter six considers in detail Barbour and Russell’s ministry up to the spring of 1878. We explore newspaper articles detailing their first missionary trip. We discuss their publishing ministry and some new doctrinal developments. They abandoned belief in an earthly heaven in mid 1877, causing some considerable controversy. We look at reactions to their ministry both from Adventists and from One Faith believers, quoting from articles appearing in their journals.

Chapter seven considers their ministry’s fruitage. We profile some who were prominent in the following years. These include Caleb Davies; William Imre Mann; Joshua Tavender; John Corbin Sunderlin; and Arthur Prince Adams. We draw on private letters, church records and contemporary newspaper articles.

Chapter eight considers the atonement controversy and separation. This exists as notes only.

We plan an additional chapter considering Barbour and Russell’s households, their wives and other connections. This may be inserted between chapters six and seven. An appendix on Russell’s supposed Masonic connections is ready. A second appendix considering Russell’s preaching with evangelists connected to The Restitution is partially complete.

 

A rough page count of volume one is 380 pages. That will change with edits.

Discussion

We’re close to the break point for what would be volume one of our next book. When chapter eight is finished and we do a thorough re-write, we could publish it. We’re debating this. There is a huge amount of work left, almost all of it for volume two. We could put out volume one, but we’re afraid that alone it will not hold our reader’s interest.

It might. There is good stuff in it, new, well-researched and interesting at least to me. But it ends with Russell and Barbour’s separation and he controversies that followed it. We don’t expect to sell many copies anyway, but we worry that interest will wane between the publication of a volume one and the final volume.

I’m in no shape physically or mentally to make a rational decision. (I’m very sick right now.) And Bruce seems torn by a desire to get it out and wanting to tell the whole story at once. So we’re opening it up for discussion here.

Lack of interest here, and we my shelve the project.

A statement

We haven’t had to restate "the rules" for some time. And I suppose that’s not exactly what I’m doing now. We post minor bits of our research on this blog. Serious research goes up on our private blog for review by a group of knowledgeable, interested readers.

We write history books. Our research supports our own writing. We’re not here to support your projects. That doesn’t mean we’re not happy to hear from blog readers. It means we cannot further your project beyond a general answer to your questions unless we’re receiving significant material from you in return.

I don’t care who you know or who you pretend to represent. I don’t care who your "important friend" may be. None of that will gain you special access to our research or draw us off into controversy with you. Our sole interest is in accurate research. If you have something to contribute, or a correction to make, or want to offer help, I’m more than happy to hear from you.

As an aside, no member of the Governing Body would send you to us back channel. Don’t take that tack with us. It will make me raise my eyebrows, but it won’t get you access to aspects of our research we haven’t published here. The Watch Tower Society knows Mr. Schulz’ address and its representatives are perfectly capable of asking their own questions.

There are older bits of research we’ve left up on this blog. Be aware that some of it may be dated. We are far beyond what remains on this blog, but we don’t post it here. We stopped posting updates here because some used our research as if it were their own discoveries and because of low-grade harassment by religious zealots.

Our work in progress is two thirds done, and we’re at 220,000 words including a mass of footnotes. There will be many never seen or seldom seen photos. It presents a new approach to the era between 1870 and 1887. There will be things you’ve never seen or heard of. We think it will change the approach to this era of Watch Tower history.

We tackle a series of mythologies built up around Russell. When it is finally published and you read it, don’t ignore the footnotes. Most are just references, but if you don’t read them you’ll miss interesting things. (Millennial Dawn evangelist arrested for threats is an example). We identify people left unnamed in official histories, telling their stories. We tell you about the criminal behavior of one of Russell’s associates. (a dirty rascal indeed!) But be aware that we’re writing well researched history, not a scandal rag, and we’re not parroting the anti-Russell or pro-Russell mythologies that abound.

We draw almost exclusively from contemporary sources, including letters and personal papers of the principals. So much for that.

Ultimately, how we respond to an email from you depends on how you present yourself. We size you up by what you write. Think about that before you send me an email.

Don't name drop.

My answer to a recent email:

I forwarded your email to Mr. Schulz. The information on our public blog about William Imre Mann is old research, and we have updated it since. We do not have a photo for him. If the Watchtower Society has questions about the first Watch Tower directors they may contact Mr. Schulz directly. They have his address.

Mr. Schulz has been a Witness since 1952 or earlier. I am a simple historian with a religion of my own. Personally, I'm reluctant to share our hard won research without an expectation of reciprocity. Mr. Schulz is more giving than I am.

We have some photos of Russell's early associates, but though we've searched for Mann's we haven't located one. We don't have Simon Osborne Blunden's photo or that for J. F. Smith, though we have a photo of his place of business and some letters he wrote. William C. McMillan's personal records have come our way in a limited way. We have H. B. Rice's photo; several for Paton; B. W. Keith's photo; original letters by and a photo of Sunderlin.

As I said above, if the Watch Tower needs this information, they should contact Mr. Schulz directly. We no longer post significant research to our public blog because of harassment from various sources and the unattributed use of our research. All our current research goes up on an invitation only blog.

We are no longer taking requests for access from people we do not know. Access is open to professional historians who we many know personally or individuals who come with a recomendation from someone we know and who can contribute in a meaningful way to our current research.

R. M. de Vienne

help with this?

We need the first name of Mrs. Bell, the wife of Rev. William Bell, head master of Dover College, Dover, Kent, England, in the 1880s.

Can you help with this ...?

One of those who read our history blogs needs a really clear, color scan of the 1931 Convention Program. Anyone?

that was quick! thanks

Joseph Dunn

We need solid biographical information about Joseph Dunn, apparently a clergyman, living in Hague, New York, in 1901. Anyone?

Convention picture

A convention photograph with some familiar faces. The front row is A H MacMillan, J F Rutherford, C T Russell, E W Brenneisen, F F Cook (?) and O L Sullivan.

All these men were on the same convention program at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland, in September 1911, so my best guess is that the photograph dates from then.

John Bohnet vs. Benjamin Wilson

John A Bohnet was a well-known name in Watch Tower history. Donator of Miracle Wheat, manager of the cemetery where CTR was buried, he later wrote articles for the Golden Age magazine.

Benjamin Wilson of course was the author or compiler of the Emphatic Diaglott.

The two men met by appointment in 1892, and Bohnet later wrote up the experience in this article from the Bible Student newspaper, the St Paul Enterprise. It was featured on the front page of the issue for April 4, 1916.

Note that Wilson states that he is not a Christadelphian.

Interviewing a reluctant writer

... wherein I interview B. W. Schulz, pretty much against his will ... Enjoy it while it lasts. -Rachael

An Interview

R: So, you’re really going to let me interview you? … and post it to the blog?

B: Reluctantly.

R: Do I need permission to treat you as a hostile witness?

B: [Laughs]

R: You’re probably the most knowledgeable expert – maybe the only expert – when it comes to early Watch Tower history. Tell us how you became interested in Watch Tower history.

B: In 1955 The Watchtower published a series on its history. It was my introduction to the subject. Then, at the Awake Ministers District Assembly in 1959 the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose was released. It’s a heavily-footnoted history written in dialogue format ….

R: That was in 1959?

B: Yes.

R: You read the book …

B: Yes, most of it in our hotel room that evening. Later, I looked up as many of the references as I could.

R: The Watchtower has published other histories since. Would you still recommend the Divine Purpose book?

B: No serious researcher can afford to ignore it. When H. G. Wells History was published – in 1924 I think – a number of historians reviewed it. They praised it fairly uniformly, but many of them said something like, “Well, this is great, except my area of expertise should have gotten more attention.” That’s my opinion of Divine Purpose. It’s worth a read. Don’t ignore it. But for the era we’re researching it’s abbreviated and wrong.

R: When did you start writing about Watchtower history?

B: In the mid-1960s.

R: Published?

B: No, strictly for myself.

R: Tell me about it.

B: Reading the available material left me believing that most of the story was untold. I pursued original material, took notes and wrote them up. The net result was a three hundred page manuscript that covered much of the era we’re writing about now. It was very unsatisfactory.

R: Why?

B: Significant parts of it came from secondary sources. That seldom produces good history.

R: You wrote other things?

B: Some commercial product and two lengthy research papers on Watchtower history.

R: Those were for …

B: The research papers? For someone else’s book. They didn’t use or used very little of it.

R: You are a Witness.

B: Yes, since the early 1950s.

R: Does this color what you write?

B: When I started, yes. There is a sort of mythology surrounding Russell. This developed during his lifetime. There is Russell the Saint, and Russell the Villain. I was predisposed to the “sainthood” myth.

R: What changed?

B: Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah, Paul.

R: [Puzzled look]

B: The Bible is a remarkably candid book. Noah’s drunkenness, Lot’s incest, Moses’ temper, the raped concubine, Jeremiah’s peevishness, and Jonah’s reluctance find their place in the Bible’s narrative. The Bible depicts men of faith in blunt way, telling us of their godly deeds and their faults. That’s my model. The Bible is an excellent example for historians who may also have a religious belief system.

God is perfect. His worshipers are not. The peevish, sometimes perverted, occasionally stupid or silly behavior of his worshipers may be unattractive, but it is part of their story.

R: Your first book in this series …

B: Our first book …

R: Our first book was Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Tell me how that project started.

B: It started life as an article for a religious history magazine. They wanted ten to fifteen thousand words, original research with end notes. In short order – as these things go – it became apparent that what we were writing would be significantly longer. I measured what we had against the magazine’s requirements, deciding that we had a developing book instead of an article. I begged off from the article.

R: Reactions to the book? … You’re smiling ….

B: A wry smile, I’m sure.

Reactions were mixed, though mostly favorable. A literary-agent friend of yours looked at it and pronounced it excellent but not something she could readily sell. Someone asked me not to publish it because it made ‘the truth’ seem less than divine. A Bible Student railed against it because it was about Barbour. Another pronounced it ‘just history.’ He is dismissive of everyone’s work but his own. He already knows what another may discover, he already owns the reference material though he never produces it. One reviewer suggested it was boring because there is no great scandal in it. On the other hand, professional historians love the book. It is, in a minor way, a myth-busting book. Those who want an accurate history like it. Those with an interest in preserving myth don’t.

R: The next book pops cherished myths …

B: Yes.

R: Such as …

B: There are endless myths connected to Russell. We peel away as many of those as we can. Claims about his childhood, his connections to various groups and philosophies, claims made about his business. We put him back into his historical context and tell as fully as possible the paths he took and who his associates were and what part they played in his theological development.

R: There will be surprises?

B: Maybe … probably.

R: A publication date?

B: Not yet; too much left to research. We find something new almost every day.

R: The next book will focus on the years 1870 to 1887?

B: With overlap on each side of that date span.

R: Now that didn’t hurt at all, did it?

B: I have a head ache now.

R: One last question: Tell us about your academic credentials.

B: No.

R: Please …

B: Okay, stop pouting. I have a history degree and an education degree both from colleges of little note. I teach.

R: [Insert un-lady-like snort here.]

More on Horace Randle

 

Horace A. Randle is mentioned in the Proclaimers book (page 418) and his story has been well told on the two history blogs. A medical missionary in China, he resigned after reading Millennial Dawn, and came back home to England. He published an eight page tract on Future Probation in 1901 from London. The census returns for London in 1901 describe him as “Medical Missionary and Preacher, Millennial Dawn Christian.” He was then living with his wife Ellen, and son Arnold.

In 1907 he started a short-lived magazine entitled Good News of the Coming Age published in Salford. At least one issue is in the British Library, but only a small portion can be copied, and then only by someone physically visiting the library.

In the 1911 census, Horace was in Salford at his sister’s home, along with his mother and two brothers. His wife and son Arnold were still living in London. References to Millennial Dawn had disappeared; he was now just described as Medical Missionary retired.

He appears to have left association with ZWT over the New Covenant issue (see Proclaimers page 630) and by 1914 was circulating material critical of both CTR’s revised views on the New Covenant, and also his high profile in the media of the day.

As a result, the St Paul Enterprise – a newspaper mainly published for Bible Students – in its issue for September 25, 1914, printed a response from an Alex Evans of the Olive Branch Ecclesia in Louisiana.

This response was viewed as sufficiently important to be reprinted in a special issue of the St Paul Enterprise in November 1914, where Evans is described as “one of our colored brethren.” This suggests that Randle’s criticism was quite widely circulated at the time in the Bible Student community.

Randle’s subsequent activities are not known, but he died in the Salford area in the latter part of 1926 aged 71.

Below is a transcript taken from the first publication of Alex Evans’ rebuttal.

 

Alex. Evans replies to Mr. Horace A. Randle

 

A Member of an Ecclesia at Olive Branch, Louisiana, in defense of Pastor Russell, Submits this Open Letter.

 

 

Olive Branch, La., Sept. 3d, 1914.
 

Editor St. Paul Enterprise:

 

 

I have read an open letter to Pastor Russell by Horace A. Randle, in which he makes several charges. I wish to make the following reply:
 

The letter is written in an apparently Christian Spirit. But herein lies its Evil Subtility, for we remember the Betrayal kiss by Judas which had the outward appearance of an act of Love, but proved to be the farthest thing from Love.
 

Randle claims that Pastor Russell and the Bible Students’ movement has changed in recent years; to this I quote the following Scripture: "The path of the Just is as a shining light that shineth more and more, unto the perfect day." (Prov. 4:18.) "Walk as children of the light." (Eph. 5:8.) "If we walk (not ‘sit’) in the light." (1John 1:7.)
 

Some claim that the one whom the Lord would use as "That Servant," at His second advent (Matt. 24:46; Luke 12:42) would need be infallible, perfect, and make no mistakes. But there have been only two perfect men on earth, Adam and Jesus. I have heard people say that both of them made mistakes: That Adam made a mistake in thinking that it would be better to transgress and die with Eve than to live alone after her death. And that Jesus made a mistake in going to a certain fig tree for figs and found nothing but leaves. Whether this be so or not, I can’t see why anyone should blame Pastor Russell for making and correcting a few little errors during the long period of the last forty years. Rather we should say, He has done well.

 

 

Randle says that, the pastor errs in saying that the Goat of Lev. 16:15 is a type of the church, and that it signifies that the church is a joint sacrifice with Jesus in the world’s great sin offering.
 

If the Lord’s Goat, and its process of offering did not typify the church and its suffering with Jesus, I ask, What then did it typify? All Bible Students ought to be able to agree that Jesus was an exact corresponding price for Adam, and that justice calls for nothing more. Yet we can see how it could "permit" more to be put on the measure. We remember how Jesus spoke of giving measures. He said: "Pressed down, shaken together, and "running over." (See Luke 6:38.) What if the church is found to be making the measure overflow? And what shall we do with the following Scripture if the church is not a joint sacrifice with Jesus?

 

 

"Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." (Heb. 13:13.)
 

"We are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (Eph. 5:33.)
 

"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body’s sake, "which is the church:’" ( Col. 1:24.) (There was a portion left behind for the church to fill up according to this Scripture.) Again we read, "Both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are one." (not two.) (Heb 2:11.)

 

 

"I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." (John 17:9.)
 

"A people for his name." (Acts 15:14.) (What people?)
 

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the Glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you (the church) the Hope of Glory." (Col. 1:27.)
 

"If ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:29.)
 

"If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may also be Glorified Together." (Rom. 8:17.) (The joint heirship depends upon the joint sufferingship, in the type the Goat suffered with the Bullock.)
 

"If we suffer with Him, (as did the Goat with the Bullock) we shall also reign with Him." (2 Tim. 2:12.)
 

I could cite many more Scriptures showing that the church (His church) takes a part with Jesus in the world’s great sin offering. Not that justice required it, but that wisdom and love arranged it so. It is not an obligation, but a great privilege, the greatest ever offered.

 

 

There are two more standpoints from which we can view nearly everything, and so it is with the subject under discussion. From one standpoint, we can view it as being all done by Jesus, because all the merit resides in Him, and from another viewpoint we see each member of His church presenting themselves to be joint sacrificers with Jesus filling in a place as though the sin offering would not have been complete without them. But from either view point it remains materially the same.
 

Jesus wears the title of priest at the present time and the apostle says every priest must have something to offer (Heb. 8:3) and the intimation is that when He ceases to have anything to offer, then His priestly office will end. Now I ask, what does Jesus have now to offer, remembering that He has long since offered Himself once for all time? Still he has something to offer, and what else could it be but His church, His mystical body in the flesh? Rom. 12:1 comes in right here. We present ourselves to Him, and He presents us to the Father. The High Priest in the type supervised all the sacrificing and the same is being done in the antitype. It is all so beautiful and clear to many Bible Students, including the writer.

 

 

The relation or connection that Christ and His church bear one another, has been the mystery unsolvable for many centuries to not only the world, but also to the nominal church.

 

 

But now in the light of the foregoing we can understand Heb. 5:3. As the church was to become part of Himself, (His wife, Rev. 19:7) in the sense of becoming a member of the great Messianic body of which He was the head, it can thus be said the he made an offering for himself, although he had no personal sin. (Heb. 7:25.)
 

Concerning the "new covenant," I will say, If it has gone into operation as Mr. Randle and others say, I would like them to tell us why it is that the Jews don’t know anything about it? According to the Scriptures it is to be made with them. (See Jer. 31:31, and Heb. 8:10.) And where is the "new heart" and general knowledge that is to result from it? I know that these questions are unanswerable, except from the viewpoint that both Jesus and His church are the world’s great testator; and before the Testament can go into effect, the death of the Testator must take place. As the church, which is a part of the great Testator, has not finished dying. The "new covenant" has not gone into effect yet; for where a Testament is, there must also be the Death of the Testator, says the apostle. (Heb. 9:16.) Though we are now serving, and being made able ministers of the "new covenant," in the sense of preparing ourselves for it.
 

Randle complains about the Pastor’s name appearing in a certain Tower more times than the name of Jesus. There is no virtue in mentioning a name, nor a lack of virtue by not mentioning it. Bible Students will remember that Jesus said that many will say to Him in that day, Lord, Lord, (calling his name double) have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name done wonders, cast out devils, etc.? And he will answer them saying, I have never recognized you; depart from me ye workers of iniquity. (Matt. 7:23.)
 

Again He asked: Why call ye me Lord, Lord, (so many times) and do not the thing which I say? (Luke 6:46.) Upon the testimony of these Scriptures we can rest assured that nothing is to be gained by calling the Lord’s name so many times. And as to Pastor Russell’s name appearing in the Jan. 1, 1912, Tower a good many times, that is the special Tower setting forth the beginning and development of present Truth, and the Harvest Work as was called for by newspaper editors who were contracting to publish the sermons; because they knew that the world wants to know about the personality of a man, where he came from, etc.; and had Pastor Russell not granted their innocent request, He would not have been acting wisely, because editors would have refused to publish a man’s sermons who had refused to make Himself known, and the Tower contained such, together with newspaper clipping; that all its readers might know how the work we love so much was progressing. The pastor objected to his picture going at the head of his sermons but the editors protested that it must be and he granted it only to keep from hindering the cause he loved so well as to sacrifice his thousands of dollars and himself for.
 

The Pastor made clear his unselfish motive in the start when he sacrificed his prosperous business and himself for the good of others and he maintains this same motive even unto this day. And the facts, when all of them are known about this noble man, will prove that a prophet sent of God has been in our midst, and he will go down in history as one of the greatest of men.

 

 

I am glad that I had the privilege of reading that open letter for it has caused me to research my Bible and Pastor Russell’s writings in the Tabernacle Shadows and to thus review the cloud of Scripture witnesses in the Pastor’s doctrinal favor. And I would suggest to all those who have not read the "Tabernacle Shadows" and "The Divine Plan of the Ages," by Pastor Russell, to do so on the first opportunity and begin to enjoy the feast of fat things therein revealed. They can be obtained from the W. T. B. & T. Society, 17 Hicks St., Brooklyn, N. Y., at a nominal cost or free to those who need.

 

 

"I live for those who love me,

And awaits my coming too;

And the good that I can do."

For the cause that lacks assistance,

For the future in the distance,

For the Heaven that smiles above me,

For the wrong that needs resistance,

For those who know me true;

 

 

Yours in the defense of the Lord’s Truth, and His special servant,
 

ALEX. EVANS.

 

 

(end of transcript)

Question

Does anyone know if the UK based post card photographer H. A. Randall is Horace A. Randall?

Paton's Larger Hope Church in Almont

This picture has already appeared on other related blogs, and shows John Paton’s Larger Hope Church in his home town of Almont.

Paton was expelled from the Baptists for teaching conditional immortality, and so built an Advent Church in Almont in 1872. As he moved into Universalism (and so parted from CTR) his Church became known as the Larger Hope Church. According to the book “Almont, The Tale of Then and Now” by Hildamae Waltz Bowman page 91 (1985 edition) from where the picture comes, it was founded in 1872 with fifteen members and folded twenty-five years later due to lack of support. By the twentieth century it was no more. Paton’s Buchanan Church featured in a post below lasted just a little longer.

The church subsequently became an extra school building, a rug factory, and then a private home. It still stands to-day in North Bristol Street, Almont. Intrepid net surfers can try and locate it using Google Earth.

Paton's Larger Hope Church in Buchanan

 

Paton’s Larger Hope Church (a former Advent Christian Church building) in his home town of Almont apparently closed before the end of the 19^th century.

Its sister church in Buchanan (pictured above) lasted a little longer. Like the Almont building, it was another former Adventist Church, and Lizzie Allen was pastor there for some time around 1890. There was a direct rail link from Buchanan to Imlay City, about eight miles north of Almont, and this allowed Paton to visit at will. Newspaper records show funerals conducted in Buchanan by John H Paton (sometimes as Elder sometimes as Rev.) for members such as Isaac Marble (1901), Aaron Miller (1904), Clarissa Mead (1905), Mary Miller Mowbray (1907) and Jane Wagner (1907).

The book Greetings from Buchanan (Goodsell and Myers 2005) describes how Paton’s Buchanan Church was ultimately sold off to the Seventh Day Adventists in 1921. It was then sold to the Church of Christ in the 1950s before eventually being torn down to make a parking lot.

We need a good scan or photocopy of this

J. W. Brite

We need to see a clear photocopy of J. W. Brite's Eternity: On the Plan of the Ages. This was published by Paton in 1891. A copy is at Harvard Divinity School Library. Our photocopy fund is at zero. Anyone want to help?

More Horace Randle

 

From an eight page tract published in London by Horace Randle in 1901.

You can see his picture and read details of his acceptance of Millennial Dawn further down this blog.

Wikipedia

The Wikipedia articles relevant to Jehovah’s Witnesses and related groups and personalities are incredibly inaccurate. We do not support their conclusions or the research behind them. While some sections contain no or few faults, Wikipedia cannot be relied on for consistently accuracy.  

This problem is endemic on Wikipedia. Neither Mr. Schulz nor myself allow our students to use it as a reference in any paper or assignment. Wikipedia is the habitation of religious trolls and abusive personalities who consider themselves “expert” but who are neither expert nor particularly talented.

The Russell's Baptism

Today someone commented on a post from 2009. They claimed that Storrs baptized the Russells in 1874. Because the comment is now burried in the archives, I'm posting my relpy here too:

There is no evidence that Storrs baptized the Russells. That is mere speculation. It's also wrong.

Storrs did not see water baptism as important. He wrote against it. Stetson, on the other hand, saw water baptism as vitally important.

There are three good candidates for personage who baptized the Russells. Storrs is not one of them.

While we're glad you read our blog, posting unfounded speculation as fact detracts from our efforts to document the real history. This claim is an example of many speculations given out as fact that find there place on Watch Tower history sites. It is without documentation. You swallowed it whole simply because you read it somewhere.

We are very skeptical historians. If we cannot document something, even if we belive it, we won't include it. This, Russell's "gold mine," claims about his fortune and business, and similar things are usually presented as fact but are at best speculation. Some of the claims made are lies.

Good history is a well documented, connected story. Your claim is fantasy fiction.

J. F. Rutherford's first book

I have the date 1895 in my files for this, but without consulting the Boonville Advertiser cannot verify that.

This is J F Rutherford’s first book. The forward reads (in part)

“It has been the aim and intention in the preparation of this book to give a brief analysis of the Laws of Missouri in a form easy to be comprehended by every one. THE ADVERTISER has had Mr. J.F. Rutherford, one of the leading members of the Boonville bar, to compile and arrange the laws herein. His fitness for such work is a guarantee of its usefulness to the farmers and business men.”

About a dozen different firms of lawyers are listed in the directory. JFR was part of WRIGHT AND RUTHERFORD, lawyers, Office in the Windsor Block.

The small book of about 128 pages was given away free with the Boonville Advertiser. It may have curiosity value, but has nothing to do with JFR’s later writings for the Watch Tower Society.

Pastor Russell in the Critics Den

Much reprinted picture that is found in some editions of Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens and also the Finished Mystery.

Russell v. T. T. Shields

Russell lectured in London, Ontario, in 1908. The Essex, New York, Free Press of February 28, 1906, reported:

Horace Randle - 1900

The sort of documentation we use ...

Letter from H. Randle, Missionary Doctor in China, resigning his appointment.

Our Research

We don’t post key material or chapter extracts here anymore. Because of harassment from some who believe all research into this subject is the province of a small group of men who primarily live on the American east coast but who felt free to ‘borrow’ our work without credit, we’ve moved all of our detailed research to a private, invitation only blog. This was not the only issue. You will find bits of our research on a web page that bills itself as the best short history of the Watch Tower took material from here and mixed it in with stupid, unfounded speculation and outright error.

Still, it may be worthwhile to tell those who still stop here where our research stands. We now have a significantly detailed, nearly finished (we’re waiting on a microfilm) chapter on Russell’s young years. It details his parent’s early years, his education, and his religious struggles. It contains details you will not know. It also puts the lie to most everything written by a recently published author who replaced research with imagination.

We present significant and new detail about Russell’s interactions with Adventists, age-to-come believers, Methodists and others. Almost none of this has been published before. It is drawn from original letters, contemporary magazines and the papers of the individuals involved. As with most of what you see on the internet, the commonly held picture is simply wrong. The story is in the details; we present the details.

We have a nearly 80 page chapter discussing the early Bible Study Group in Allegheny. We tell you what doctrines they accepted and why. We tell you whose books they read, who they corresponded with and what groups influenced them. You will find that the commonly held belief that they were primarily influenced by Adventists is wrong.

We have finished a detailing Russell’s entry into the Barbourite movement. This includes the most detailed biography of John Henry Paton found anywhere. Some of that is drawn from his private letters. We have one year of his diary. In this chapter we give you biographies of Benjamin Wallis Keith, and we include photos of him you will not have seen. We discuss S. H. Withington; you will probably have never heard of him. We profile L. A. Allen, one of the first Watch Tower contributors, and her father. We tell you of Lizzie Allen’s troubled life, taken from her own words. We tell you something of Avis M. Hamlin’s life. It’s almost certain you know nothing of her. Yet, she was important in the early years of Zion’s Watch Tower.

One of the most significant chapters details Russell’s early ministry with Barbour. We know where they preached, what their message was, who they met, what they said. This chapter draws on early newspaper articles, an issue of the Herald of the Morning almost no one has seen, and Russell’s own words.

We follow this with a chapter on the fruitage garnered by their ministry. Names that may appear only once or so in Zion’s Watch Tower are given biographies and put in their proper setting. These include Caleb Davies, a merchant from Cleveland, William I. Mann, an engineer and inventor, Joshua Tavender, an industrialist, J. C.Sunderlin, a Methodist minister and photographer, and others. Among the others is Arthur Adams, Methodist minister. We draw his story from pages of original archival material. This is a good place to observe that no matter how much you might want something, stealing from an archive is wrong. And if the person who stole Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return from the archive holding these papers has a conscience at all, he will return it. In this chapter we tell in Sunderlin’s own words about his opium addiction and how he overcame it. We draw parts of his story from letters he wrote. We own some of the originals. A number of seldom seen or never seen photos show up in each of these chapters.

The next chapter considers the aftermath of their 1878 failure and the separation into two movements. We note several times from original sources the lack of doctrinal unity and explain the significance of that.

I have summarized just the first few chapters. We continue to find new material, often thanks to interested parties. We have thousands of pages of new material. It came our way through the kind efforts of one of our blog readers. We’ve just arranged to acquire about seventy pages of original letters and such by one of the first Watch Tower missionaries in China. We have a poor quality photo of him and his wife and several of his children. So we continue to work. The real history is far different than we first believed.

We still consider requests to see the invitation only blog, but we tend to limit access to those who can help in some significant way. Curiosity alone may not get you access.

A Mystery?

 

Here is a mystery from a 1928 convention report. The Messenger for July 31, 1928, spread across pages 4 and 5 - The Bethel family at meal-time. You can see W E Van Amburgh and J F Rutherford at the head of tables on the far right of the picture. Below the center pillar is a young Nathan Knorr. Two figures directly below him on the table nearest the camera is a figure that has been drawn in. Who was in this seat originally? Was it just an empty space that someone decided to fill with a bit of art work? Whoever did the drawing gave the character hardly any shoulders.

I will grant readers that this is not the most important question in the world.

Brooklyn Eagle 1909

 

1913 Convention series booklet

 

A 16 page program of the train tour from 1913. The booklet lists all the places scheduled for meetings and gives some handy hints for travellers.