All About One Russell (1914)

Download: PDF — All About One Russell (1914)

Cook

All about one Russell

BX8526 C771 Library of The Theological Seminary

PRINCETON·NEW JERSEY

PRESENTED BY

The Estate of

Victor H. Lukens

BX8526

.C771

All about one Russell

LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY

THE LOGICAL A

ALL ABOUT

ONE

RUSSELL

By CHARLES C. COOK

TWENTY-SEVENTH THOUSAND

FIFTEEN CENTS

Philadelphia School of the Bible 1721-23 Spring Garden Street Philadelphia, Pa.

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 All About One Russell

The Russell to whom this pamphlet is devoted can of course be none other than the self-styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell of the so-called "Brooklyn Tabernacle," Brooklyn, N. Y., the "London Tabernacle," London, England, and the Washington Temple, Washington, D. C.; founder of Millennial Dawnism, The International Bible Students' Association; and chief editor and manager of the Watch Tower Publications.

By the title employed no one will, we trust assume that we will tell all about Pastor Russell, this would be an impossibility. The meaning rather is that all that is written herein is about Pastor Russell.

We have had our eye on Russell for many years, having read his books and known considerable about him from the earlier days of his work. We remember distinctly when many we among them hesitated to oppose him for fear of only thus further advertising him and his work, but all such caution is now entirely needless, as this master in the art of advertising has made himself known all over the civilized world.

He is certainly a wonder as a press agent. Mr. W. T. Ellis, who investigated him, says:

"I sought a prophet and I found a business man! Instead of a humble seeker after truth, I found the cleverest propagandist of the age—a man before whom John Alexander Dowie, Mary Baker Eddy, Madame Blavatsky, Abbas Effendi, "Elijah" Sanford and Joseph Smith pale into puerile ineffectiveness."

What good can be said concerning this man and his work? It surely would be well to note and state such if there be any. Let us not be afraid to recognize the fact that he has been the means of leading doubtless many thousands to the study of the Bible, who otherwise would never have read a single page of it; of this we are convinced.* And of another thing also, that among these thousands there will be some, even though only a few,—who will be led beyond the false doctrines of Russellism to a true apprehension of God's Way of Salvation.

To be sure there is no credit due here to Russell, it will be not because of his influence and intent, but in spite of them. Still there is some consolation in the reflection that there will be a little salvage from the great mass of Millennial Dawn wreckage.

Some too may see good in this movement on the ground that it is at least an agency that stands for correct morals and conduct, and that by diverting the minds of many to Bible Study will tend to more or less of moral uplift.

As to this view we will express no opinion. Nor are we sure that in winning some of his followers from Rome and Judaism (as is claimed) he has accomplished any real good.

As to Russell's private character we are disposed to take the charitable view, for after reading the main points of evidence in the suit brought by his wife for divorce, our conclusion is that while he undoubtedly treated her cruelly and un-Christianlike, and acted improperly toward other women, he was not proven guilty of sexual immorality.

Further we are induced to say, that we cannot but feel that the larger measure of his success has come to him, by reason of the unfaithfulness of the church and the pulpit in their failure to devote attention to the prophetic element of Scripture. Had ministers generally devoted but a moderate portion of their time and effort to the unfolding of God's plan for this age to their hearers, then such false apostles as Russell would have found little response to their vagaries. But when Christians whose Bibles contain the prophecies of Daniel, John, Paul, James, and most important of all,-those of the Lord Jesus Christ, never hear from one year's end to another, a discourse or even reference to them, how inevitable is it that when a silver-tongued expositor appears with his charts and forecasts they yield first, attention, then assent, and finally allegiance.

Russell is not therefore to be blamed that fertile fields yielded ready harvests to his sowing. It is a simple proposition: People read the prophetic portions of the Word, and longing to have them unfolded to their comprehension say, "Why does not our pastor treat these subjects, they are here and must be designed for our instruction?" Soon flaring posters announce lectures by Pastor Russell, (or some one else), on these very themes, and the bait is eagerly swallowed and another fish is caught.

Whether the foregoing is considered as being much or little in Russell's favor, we firmly believe that no pen can even outline the vast amount of evil that follows this movement. If Russell is right then nearly all that has ever passed for Christian teaching and doctrine is wrong—for there is no compromise between Russellism and orthodox Christianity,—no common ground. While on the other hand if orthodox Christianity is true then Russellism is a deadly system, giving false hopes and leading tens of thousands of souls to a hopeless perdition.

The mere mention of one single word should be enough to cause any soul to pause before accepting his teachings, or having accepted them, to continue holding them with assurance. That one word is "SUPPOSE"peradventure Russell be wrong! Oh, it is a terrible venture, this risking all on the mere say-so of one man who, for reasons which we are about to give, is unworthy of confidence.

Russell cannot possibly prove that his deliverances are true. He has no more scriptural ground for many of them (as we shall show) than the Roman Church has tor belief in purgatory, priesthood, or Mariolatry.

How comes it that he knows more than all the holy men of God of the past and present? Many of them were and are men whose lives and labors bear unmistakably the divine stamp, and to whose efforts there are signs following. Yet all these men of wisdom, power and experience are brushed aside by this latest teacher. How incredulous such an assumption, and how incredulous the companion assumption that God would allow such men as Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Edwards, Finney, and a host of others, to be ignorant of what is now revealed by Pastor Russell; more than this, that God would allow them for centuries to mislead humanity with false doctrines, which could be rectified only by this modern prophet. It reminds us of the remark made by old Dr. Lyman Beecher concerning some remarkable doctrinal discoveries by his son Thomas, "What a pity that after the Lord had kept these things secret for so long a time, Thomas should expose Him!"

To give now our reasons for a disbelief in Russell and for an earnest appeal to Christians everywhere to shun his toils we name: I.

His incompetency as a teacher of Bible doctrine.

He does not possess the education nor training for the role he has assumed. That he has a bright mind and is possessed of considerable mental ability is not denied, but these are not sufficient for the undertaking which he has essayed. One may possess these and yet lack information, logic, power of correct expression, and above all, Holy Ghost power, and these are the very things which in the case of Russell are conspicuous by their absence. It is true that many a man has been wonderfully used by God who has lacked every element of scholarly ability. Such a man was Moody, and many others will occur to the reader's mind, but not a single man among such Christian leaders ever endeavored to introduce a new system of religious belief. They served well as Evangelists and Reformers; teachers of morals and quickeners of men's consciences, but not as founders of new religions. Luther and Wesley, who were chosen of God to inaugurate distinctively new movements, were not only men of fervor and devotion, but also and of necessity, men of real scholarship, and consequently their work abides. When men and women without proper equipment have tried this work we have as a result such preposterous systems as Mormonism, Spiritualism, Dowieism and Christian Science. It is to this modern series of new religions that Millennial Dawnism properly belongs.

It is nothing against Russell that he spent the earlier years of manhood in a Gent's Furnishing Goods Store, for that is an honorable occupation, and the Apostles were fishermen, but the fact remains that Hebrew and Greek—which are absolutely essential to one whose ipse dixit is to be taken in matters Biblical—are evidently sealed fountains to Russell, and very conspicuous also are "his limitations—theological, historical, literary, geographical, social and economic."

This being the case, it is no wonder that Russell, in order to pinch and piece together his patchwork theology, has floundered into some awkward and preposterous exegeses that would be provocative of rude laughter were the subject less serious.

For example in treating the account of the rich man and Lazarus,—Lazarus is made to represent the Gentiles who have received the Gospel, while the rich man stands for Judah and Benjamin, and his five brothers for the remaining ten tribes, one brother for two tribes! As a sample of exegesis on this same subject we quote from Vol. I, No. 4, of Peoples Pulpit, column 1, page 2:

"Only very recently we have had an exhibition of how this rich man (Israel), dead as a nation, but alive as a people, has appealed to Father Abraham to have Lazarus cool his tongue with a drop of water. Of course the thought would not be that a spirit finger should take a literal drop of water to cool a literal tongue. The interpretation must be looked for along the lines of a parable.

The fulfilment came when the Jews of this country, in a general petition, requested the President of the United States to cooperate with other Christian nations and intercede on behalf of their members in Russia that they might have more liberty and less persecution, that their torments might be cooled."

Coming to more serious things he declares that Jesus Christ was not God before His Incarnation, as though passages like the following had never been written:—John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM"; John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was"; Phil. 2:6, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

Again he teaches that Christ was only a created spirit, and this in the face of Colossians 2:9, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"; and of Isaiah 9:6, "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE MIGHTY GOD"; and of Micah 5:2, "Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall he come forth . . . whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

He denies the resurrection of the Lord's body in direct opposition to the plain declaration, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . but he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:19-22); and of the Saviour's challenge after his resurrection "handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have"—Luke 24:39.

With these definite statements before his eyes Russell dares to say, "We know nothing about what became of his body . . . whether it was dissolved into gases . . . "

What shall be said of such work, and of the followers of such an arrant pretender? We spare further adjectives in describing him, while excusing his followers on the ground of ignorance. Perhaps we should be thankful for the last named crass assumption of the "gas theory," for it has proven a little too much for some who were disposed to follow him.

To give an illustration of ignorance coupled with illogicality we note his interpretation of I Timothy 2:5,6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time."

He uses this as one of the foundation stones of his system, dwelling on the "ransom for all" as the ground for belief in a universal salvation, making the testifying to be his (Russell's) own in this the "due time." This to be sure is an absurd rendering, and should forever shut him off from serious consideration, for even the slightest study will reveal the meaning of the passage to be as follows: "（Christ Jesus）who gave himself as the redemption price for all—a fact testified to at its own appointed time”（that is, when Christ hung on the cross）（Weymouth's translation).

But the main point at which we are now aiming in order to show Russell's inconsistency is this, that while here claiming that Christ died for ALL, yet he is not long in stumbling over the "incorrigibles," so hopeless are these that even Russell must consign them to judgment, which in his hands, amounts to annihilation. But see into what a trap of his own making Russell has fallen, for his ALL is not all after all.

His own "incorrigibles" mar the allness of his argument. Now if Russell's all is not all, surely orthodoxy may be allowed the same privilege of making exceptions, and this it does by affirming on the basis of many Scripture passages, that while Christ gave himself a ransom for all, only those who accept him become the beneficiaries of his saving grace.

Another instance showing ignorance united with bombastic self-assurance is found in his appropriating the reference in Matthew 24:45-46 to himself. The passage reads, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing."

Do our readers grasp our statement? Russell himself claims to be "THAT servant."

Allow such indiscriminate appropriations and any one can claim anything, and "get away with it," provided he is surrounded by admiring followers who are not particular as to verification.

Again we quote Mr. Ellis:

"The acceptance of Russell as 'that servant' was made a test of fellowship among his followers, we are told, by the written statement of some who had been of that number, but who subsequently joined the large procession that is steadily falling away from 'Pastor' Russell.

This fact gives point to such statements as the following from a 'souvenir' of one of Russell's convention trips, indorsed by a fac-simile of his signature: 'If any oppose the Lord by opposing the Channel (i.e., The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) and the Servant (i.e., Russell) the Lord has delegated to do his work, to that extent he loses the favor, the Spirit of the Lord; light becomes darkness, and he is soon outside.' This same volume reports addresses, showing supposed Bible prefigurations and prophecies of Russell that are shocking to Christian nonbelievers in Russellism."

On page 298 of his "Watch Tower," of issue of Sept. 15, 1910, it is written concerning his books:

"If the six volumes of 'Scripture Studies' are practically the Bible, topically arranged, with Bible proof text given, we might not improperly name the volumes 'The Bible in an Arranged form.' That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself . . .

"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying in the Bible by itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the 'Scripture Studies' aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years—if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the 'Scripture Studies' with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.'

"That is tall talk. Even some of the devoted Russellites could not stand this. In the statement of the reason for their defection from the 'pastor' one group say: 'When man thus belittles God's word and makes his own superior to that of God it seems to be nothing short of blasphemy. Reflect upon it! To confine one's self to the Bible means outer darkness—to take the word of this one man and never read a page of the Bible means to be in the light.'

"Still another seceding group charge 'Pastor' Russell with saying that he doubted 'whether much good has ever been derived from all the independent Bible study undertaken in the past.' That is to say, the injunction, 'Search the Scriptures,' is to be taken as meaning, search 'Studies in the Scripture,' by Charles T. Russell! For he claims that 'The key of knowledge of the Scriptures long lost is found, and gives God's people access to the hidden mystery.'"

In his "Bible Students Monthly" (vol. 5 No.1) it is stated, "Everything is getting ready for the Millennium! Not only is it coming, but IT IS HERE!" What?

He may very properly be called the Great Paraphraser, for his readiness to inject phrases and whole sentences into the very heart of Scripture passages is something wonderful to behold. It is a convenient gift, for by this process Scripture can be made to mean anything.

We have space for only one illustration, viz.: John 5:28, 29, which he treats as follows:—"All that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man and come forth" to a resurrection of judgment, trial, testing, to prove who will accept the gift of eternal life and who will reject it and suffer the penalty—Second Death.

From Bible Students Monthly—Vol. 5 No.1.

One of Pastor Russell's great themes, in fact, the one which he generally uses in bursting forth into a new community, is "Where are the Dead?" This is a theme of universal interest, for all have dear ones who have passed from earthly scenes, and this, together with the immensely expensive advertisement of his subject, usually brings together a large audience. Now what does Pastor Russell give his hearers for their pains? Following as he does, the Adventist belief as to the state of the dead, viz.: that the body crumbles into dust, and the soul becomes unconscious, his whole address may be compressed into one word, viz.: the dead are "Nowhere"! For surely an unconscious spirit is a non-existent spirit. What else can it be? What is to be thought of one, a would-be-teacher who would spend a vast sum of money, and over an hour of time in elucidating so marvelous a conception,—that the dead are nowhere! And what is to be thought of an audience that would ever be caught with the same chaff, that is, would ever again assemble to hear such a lecturer. Well they do, and this is sufficient cause for tears, that American audiences know their Bibles so poorly and do so little real thinking, as these conditions clearly indicate. For surely it is plainly enough written, "He that believeth HATH everlasting life."

Everlasting life is on the authority of God's Word the present possession of him who accepts Jesus Christ as his Saviour. But it cannot be a present possession if the soul is unconscious, for an unconscious soul is no soul at all and how can it possess eternal life? Now Russell knows that the Bible states that "he that believeth hath everlasting life," and that it says "ye must be born again," and that it teaches that "we know we have passed from death unto life." But these are not allowed to collide with Russell's doctrine. Anything is easy for Russell, so without a breath of hesitancy he consigns all the e promises to the resurrection time. The believer receives eternal life at the resurrection, he is born again at the resurrection, he passes from death to life at the resurrection. All very easy if one knows how to be bold enough to do it, and to have it sanctioned by admiring followers. What a world of error Russell would have saved himself, if he had stopped long enough to learn, and to proclaim, this simple truth, viz.: That at his natural birth every human being receives "endless existence";—at his acceptance of Jesus Christ as Saviour he receives "eternal life"; while at his resurrection he receives "immortality." The natural man has only endless existence; eternal life is the gift of God to those that believe; immortality pertains to the resurrection body, for "this mortal shall put on immortality."

Think of a man with no more calibre than Russell coolly undertaking to harmonize Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism! Instead of frankly admitting, as most really great minds have done, that in the plans of an infinite God there must of necessity be things too hard for finite minds to understand, he without hesitancy attempts to square the circle and his followers applaud. But his circle is not a true one, and the corners of his square still obtrude.

Well has Dr. Moorehead, for many years President of Xenia Theological Seminary, summarized and commented on Russell's false teachings.

"I. Christ before his advent was not divine.

"2. When he was in the world he was still not divine.

"3. His atonement was exclusively human, a mere man's.

"4. Since his resurrection he is divine only, no longer human at all.

"5. His body was not raised from the dead.

"6. His second advent took place in 1874.

"7. The saints were raised up in 1878.

"8. Both Christ and the saints are now on earth and have been for thirty-seven and thirty-three years respectively.

'9. The professing Christian church was rejected of God in 1878.

"10. The final consummation and end will take place in 1914.

"11. Silence as to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

"12. The destiny of the wicked.

"Such is the millennial dawn of C. T. Russell—a mixture of Unitarianism, Universalism, second probation and restorationism, and the Swedenborgian method of exegesis.

Let the reader remember that imposition is not exposition, nor is eisegesis exegesis. Mr. Russell constantly employs both; he imposes on Scripture his own views and reads into it that which never entered the mind of the inspired writer. May God in his infinite mercy preserve his people from being deceived and betrayed by this counterfeit of Christianity. It should be called not Millennial Dawn, but 'Nocturnal Hallucination.'"

Concluding our remarks, under this head we give the final summing up of the Rev. I. M. Haldeman, D.D., Pastor First Baptist Church, New York, in his pamphlet entitled, "Millennial Dawnism; The Blasphemous Religion which teaches The Annihilation of Jesus Christ."*

It denies the doctrine of the Trinity.

It denies that Jesus Christ was God before his incarnation.

It teaches that Christ was only a created spirit.

In incarnation he ceased to be a spirit and became the second Adam.

As the second Adam he had only one nature.

His nature of humanity was annihilated on the cross.

He did not rise in the body in which he died.

The body in which he died may have been dissolved into gas.

The body in which he appeared after death was nothing more than a momentarily materialized appearance which was finally dissolved.

Jesus Christ is not now a man.

The "Man Christ Jesus" no longer exists.

Jesus Christ is now an invisible spirit being.

He came to the world in 1874 as an invisible spirit being.

The Millennium will begin in 1914.

All the dead out of Christ will be raised at that time.

All the unrighteous and wicked dead will be raised and made perfect and innocent like Adam before the fall.

All the unrighteous and wicked dead will be given a second chance.

The more wicked they have been in this life, the more likely they will be, through the "experience" of sin, to accept the Gospel of the second chance.

Those who accept the second chance will have everlasting life.

Those who get everlasting life will sustain it by eating food.

Those who do not want to live forever will have the privilege of being asphyxiated in the lake of fire.

The assurance given to the wicked and sinful is, that there is no suffering for sin.

Those who do not care for heaven, need not be afraid of hell.

The finally impenitent are extinguished here, and annihilated hereafter.

II. The second charge against Pastor Russell is that he is untrustworthy to a degree that involves common honesty, as to the promulgation of his doctrines.

This is a serious accusation to make against any man, but it can be fully proven.

We will briefly pass over the question as to how he came by his title of "Pastor," seeing that in this country any congregation may so designate any one or more of its members, and that this recognition gives such person or persons a legal standing as head of the assembly. Moreover anyone may designate himself "Pastor," whether others so address him or not. But in either case not much weight is usually given to such title, when so obtained, by the churches generally, for the reason that all accredited bodies of Christians have methods of recognizing and setting apart ministers, and are so freely disposed to acknowledge merit, that any worthy candidate is sent forth to his work with an endorsement that gains recognition from nearly all other denominations in Protestantism. "Pastor" Russell has no such endorsement. We have never heard it hinted that he ever passed an examination by, or was ever endorsed by any body of ministers, or company of Christians, except those whom he has succeeded in gathering about him as believers in his own peculiar views.

Instead of ever receiving recognition from any other body of Christians, he steadily follows a policy of belittling their labors and successes, and in seeking recruits from among their membership.

Perhaps the most notorious example of his efforts to cast reflection upon their work for God, was his widely advertised world-tour for the investigation of Missions.

On his return with the committee that accompanied him, vast sums of money were spent in advertising the results; entire pages being used in the leading papers and magazines whose great circulation makes the cost of space exceedingly high. The culmination of his scheme was a monster gathering in the New York Hippodrome, where the reports were made with a great flourish. And all this waste of money and effort were for what purpose? Listen ye Christian believers who know of the faithful labors of missionaries in heathen lands, conducted in most cases at the sacrifice of ease, pleasure, gain, and often of health and life itself; you who know of the lifework and success of Carey, Judson, Morrison, Verbeck, Taylor and their earnest associates and followers; you who know that thousands, and hundreds of thousands in pagan lands have been won for Christ, and that China, India, Japan, Korea and other lands have as devoted followers of Christ as the ages in any land have shown. The purpose of Russell's great and costly scheme was to discredit all this labor, sacrifice and success; to hold it up to reproach and ridicule!

But thank God! there was at least one man who was fully competent to expose this well-laid plan, and he performed his task right well. This man was Mr.W.T.Ellis,the Editor-a-field of "The Continent." Having himself made a careful and unbiased study of foreign mission work in all the more important fields, by a personal visitation, he was peculiarly qualified to turn the light on Pastor Russell and his smooth game.

In three articles published during September and October, 1912, in "The Continent" under the title of "An Investigator Investigated," Mr. Ellis gave a most readable account of his personal interviews with Russell pertaining to the latter's much-vaunted travels, investigations and conclusions. As the issues of the paper containing this account were long ago exhausted, and so cannot now be obtained, we are led to give further extracts from them, a privilege kindly granted by the Editor of "The Continent."

Extracts from "The Continent":

The "report" of the "Missions Investigating Committee of the International Bible Students' Association" was made at a huge meeting in the New York Hippodrome on March 31, a meeting from which many hundreds were turned away. Newspaper accounts of this were widely circulated by telegraph. The impression given by these reports was that a careful company of representative and scholarly Christian men had explored the uttermost reaches of the missionary enterprise, and had found it gravely lacking! The session itself was better attended than any similar gatherings ever held in the same place by Christian laymen. Instant challenge of the Russell "report" should have been issued by either the Laymen's Movement or the Allied Mission Boards.

The day has passed when anybody can make sweeping and unsupported statements about any part of the earth and expect to be taken seriously. It was incumbent upon the Russell party to prove enough of their statements to establish their trustworthiness. If they based their comprehensive generalities upon data, the public had a right to know at least a part of the data. If they actually made no real investigation of foreign missions, but took a hurried trip around the world, the facts should be known.

After reading carefully Russell's "report," and after interviewing the man himself, I declare that his alleged "investigation" of missions was no investigation at all. Here is proof:

Russell was in Japan and China only so long as his ship remained in port, discharging and receiving cargo. For he traveled by the same ship clear from San Francisco to Hongkong.

Russell simply made a short, quick, sight-seeing journey around the world.

Mr. Russell Meets Two Missionaries

Russell met no missionaries—so he admitted to me—except Dr. Spencer of the Methodist mission, Tokyo, with whom he held no discussion concerning missions, and Secretary George Lerrigo of the Y.M.C.A., Canton. Russell did not visit mission compounds (except the Methodist compound in Tokyo) and he did not seek the views of representative men on the ground, native and foreign, concerning missions.

Russell's knowledge of missions is still, as it always has been, a negligible quantity.

Moreover, his journey was so hurried that he did not even remember the names of the principal cities on the route of "the grand tour" which he took. I had to supply him with the names of the points at which he touched in the East—which was easy, since in all Asia, except for his little detour to Southwest India, he visited only the cities through which any tourist agent would route a conventional traveler. When on shore, Russell was primarily engaged in delivering speeches for which his advance agent had arranged.

No man questions the right of any representative person or committee to investigate foreign missions. The perfect propriety of the task to which Russell's committee addressed itself is unchallenged. If foreign missions, which are a vast and costly enterprise, in which the honor of the American name itself is involved, will not bear investigation, the sooner the world knows it the better. The basic principle may be laid down that the mission boards at home and the mission work abroad are properly subject to review by the public. The day has passed, if it ever existed, for any absurd notions concerning the sacrosanct character of board secretaries and ecclesiastical operations.

A full charter of liberty to investigate missions in their every aspect must be given to the Russellites, as to everybody else who has the interest or the means to pursue the subject intelligently. The more numerous the honest and thorough investigators of missions the better for missions and for the investigators.

"Investigation" Should Mean Investigation

But words must be kept for their primary use. Investigation means investigation. It implies an examination of the facts involved and a sincere statement of the reasonable conclusions to be drawn therefrom. Assuming that I were a clergyman who disapproved of "Pastor" Russell's views, as I had heard them stated by another clergyman, and that, being a believer in missions, I had been annoyed by the newspaper dispatch that the Russell party had reported adversely upon the missionary enterprise, it would not be an "investigation" for me simply to stand in a pulpit and utter a tirade against the man and his works. That would not be worthy of a minister's intellectual integrity, nor would it be fair to the facts.

Or, instead of citing a hypothetical case like this, in order to illustrate what is involved in this important word "investigation," let the present article stand as an example. I undertook to investigate "Pastor" Russell. This means I must seek out the facts at first hand.

So I made repeated trips to Brooklyn to view the Russell headquarters, and to interview the "pastor" himself. I went to Pittsburgh and dug out the man's early record there. I attended one of his conventions and heard him speak in public. I read carefully his missionary report and examined quantities of his literature. I learned from authoritative journalistic sources his methods of dealing with newspapers. I digested the Russell business operations. I hunted up Russell's one conspicuous adherent that I could discover, an ex-army officer, and interviewed him. In a word, as a journeyman journalist, I sought to fulfil Dana's definition of the first principle of our craft: "See both sides, and get all the facts."

Surely, at least that much may be required of a committee of large public pretensions investigating so important an enterprise as foreign missions. I was only dealing with Charles T. Russell; they were dealing with a work involving 20,000 missionaries, and millions of missionary supporters, and the annual expenditure of $25,000,000.

Therefore, it is reasonable to ask that these "investigators" should have taken sufficient time (1) to interview missionaries of several churches in such numbers as to obtain a representative view; (2) to inspect all forms of mission work in sufficient variety of each to justify a generalization; (3) to travel over a fair proportion of the mission field, and in regions not dominated by foreign trade; this would include a reasonable amount of study of missions in the interior; (4) to interview a considerable body of native Christians; (5) and to ascertain, at first hand, the views of the disinterested persons who should know of missions from personal knowledge, such as native officials and teachers, diplomatists and consuls, editors and resident business men, whose work makes them familiar with native conditions.

Is not that obviously fair? Anybody can see the reasonableness of these requirements. For more than all this has been done by some of us who have investigated foreign missions. Yet in every one of these five particulars the Russell party failed, so far as I can learn from their printed report and from an extended interview with their leader himself. They did not make anything remotely resembling a thorough investigation.

Mr. Ellis's Interview with "Pastor" Russell

Before proceeding to comments upon this "report" itself, I want to summarize an interview which I held with "Pastor" Russell in his Brooklyn "Bethel," the two big houses joined in one where he and about a hundred of the faithful work and eat and sleep. Extended talk upon the Russell organization and beliefs preceded the questions and answers concerning the missionary "investigation."

I learned that "most denominations hold in common certain errors and most are divided on the truth." The millennial kingdom is to be set up in October, 1914. Before this the kingdoms of this world are to have a short lease of power which terminates then. This is to be a time of trouble, lasting hardly more than a year, a terrible time shortened because of the "elect," who are the Russellites. The Messiah will never return in person; he will come in spirit, and reign "on the ruins of human hopes and human civilization." This sovereignty, as near as I could understand, is to be exercised through the "elect." The Russell doctrine differs from most similar cults in that it has no place for divine healing in its scheme. Russell told me that "we never pray for health, nor strength, nor money, nor any material things." I could not resist the temptation to remind him of the Lord's prayer, "give us this day our daily bread."

When we got down to the alleged tour of investigation of missions, and I had set Russell to rummaging in his notebooks for facts (apparently he kept a diary chiefly of his own speaking engagements), he informed me that the expedition left San Francisco on the Shinyo Maru on December 3, stopping a few hours in Honolulu en route to Yokohama, and Japan was not reached until December 31. There was considerable sparring before I got my host, who began the interview with such apparent candor, to admit that he was in Japan only so long as his ship touched the ports.

He had told me that he had "spent about a week in Japan," and he said he took ship for China at "Nippon." "Nippon" means "Japan," and there is no such city; when I suggested that he probably meant Nagasaki he assented. Starting in at Tokyo, I asked for the names of missionaries whom he had met. Only Dr. Spencer, and he was not sponsor for any opinions expressed. Relentlessly I pursued him through the cities of Japan that tourists always traverse when going overland to connect with their ship at Kobe or Nagasaki. He explained that it really was not missionaries that he wanted to see and investigate, but missions.

Very well, had he seen. And I enumerated the principal missions (he apparently had never even heard of Doshisha, in Kyoto, much less of the Meiji Gakuin in Tokyo) in the cities he had visited. He had not seen one of them! Driven into a corner, he protested that I misunderstood him, for it was not exactly missionaries or missions that he was investigating, but the attitude of the native peoples toward these!

Blandly, I began to name representative Japanese. Of course he had called on Count Okuma, and Mayor Ozaki, and the Imperial University professors, and the newspaper editors? He had not. At least he had seen the American ambassador, or some of the American consuls? Not one of them.

After I had pursued the "pastor" through all the ports of Japan, China and India that he had touched—he had met Lerrigo, of the Young Men's Christian Association at Canton (I know George Lerrigo, and what his views of Russell's theology would be, and I await his opinion of the "investigation") and the American consul at Madras—it was apparent that the "investigation" could be riddled by any school boy who had studied world geography.

Russell seemed eager to show that in Shanghai his feet were on solid ground (all of China that he saw was during one day spent in Shanghai, and one in Canton!) for there he was in the hands of "the niece of the American minister, Mr. Barchett." As delicately as possible in the circumstances I informed him that the American minister lives in Peking; I did not add that the part of Shanghai which he saw is entirely outside of Chinese jurisdiction, and that in this international settlement he could mail "copy" to the hungry press at Brooklyn in a real United States post office at the domestic rate of 2 cents an ounce. Told that there is a consul general at Shanghai, he jumped at the suggestion. Mr. Barchett was perhaps consul general, and not minister.

Was he sure of the name Barchett? Yes after consulting the notebook—that was the name. But our consul general is Dr. Amos P. Wilder, a former newspaper man, and an intelligent advocate of foreign missions, who, had he been given a chance at the Russell party, could have put more facts into their "report" than they seem to have gathered in a tour round the world.

Nor was his predecessor Dr. Barchett, nor any of his predecessors. Dr. Stephen P. Barchett, for many years a Baptist medical missionary in China, near the close of his long life, served as interpreter in the American consulates at Hankow and Shanghai, and for a time was viceconsul at Shanghai. He died in 1909.

The dates are notable. This tour of investigation, which began in San Francisco on December 3, ended in New York on March 28—a total of 116 days, nearly all of which was spent aboard steamships. In this time, only two stops of as much as a week's duration were made anywhere one among his own followers in India and one in London. The visit to Europe involved more land travel than all the rest of the round-the-world tour combined. Verily "your committee found no time in which to visit Burma, Africa and Australasia!"

An Examination of the "Report"

The farcical "report" of this "missions investigating committee" is put out in a special edition of The Watch Tower.

Throughout, the "report" has choice bits like this: "The missionaries themselves appear to be an earnest company, but considerably discouraged."

That is written concerning Japan, when "Pastor" Russell himself told me that he had met only one missionary, and did not talk with him concerning missions! Yet the conclusion concerning Japan is: "What the Japanese need is 'the gospel of the kingdom' announcing the second coming of Jesus as the Messiah of glory, to rule, heal and instruct all the families of the earth. Pastor Russell's sermons gave them more food for thought than they had ever before enjoyed!"

The "report" is beautifully vague throughout. Thus, "directly and indirectly, we visited and inspected the conditions of life in about fifteen cities and villages (of China) whose combined population was about 4,000,000." Surely that sounds like real investigation; yet "Pastor" Russell admitted to me that he had touched at Shanghai, which is a foreign settlement; at Hongkong, which is wholly British territory, and that he had spent a day in Canton. That, I gathered, was the extent of his knowledge of China.

Nevertheless, he assures the reader of the "report" that "the Chinaman is perplexed by the 600 different denominations of Christians and the 600 theories of salvation which they represent." "Pastor" Russell cannot name one-sixth of that number of denominations at work in China, and he must admit that all the churches at work in China are preaching but one essential gospel.

An equally amazing ipse dixit is, "The missionaries now find it inexpedient to discuss doctrinal matters . . . In conversation many of them showed great earnestness and real piety, and deplored their inability to accomplish greater results along religious lines. Others, a minority, we hope, seemed to have a narrow and hypocritical spirit." This is one of the scores of points in the narrative at which we would defy Russell to name the men.

He substantiates the charge against big houses (I doubt if he has seen twenty missionaries' houses in his life) by citing the case of the pastor of Union Church, Shanghai, who gets the princely salary of $2,400 gold. The brilliant Dr. Darwent is not a missionary at all, but the pastor of a self-supporting church attended solely by European residents.

Concerning China, the most important statement made in the "report" is that "Pastor" Russell addressed the natives on two occasions. Considerable interest was manifested and Chinese reports of both discourses were published, the publishers proposing to continue such publication weekly, after the manner of the American and British newspapers. "Something in his presentation seemed especially to strike interest and convince many of his hearers." I shall not burden this article with further quotations concerning "Pastor" Russell speeches.

The "report" says, "Your committee visited Singapore and Penang and had interesting and profitable experiences."

That sounds like the end of the earth, doesn't it? The untraveled reader pictures these zealous "investigators," fired with thirst for the last ascertainable fact, pioneering their way clear to the equator that they might search into the inwardness of missions on the Malay peninsula. On the other hand, every person who has circumnavigated the globe by the sea route knows that of necessity ships must touch at Singapore and Penang, and "Pastor" Russell saw no more of the Malay peninsula than has been seen by every other traveler who ever went around the world by the Indian ocean route. The only protracted stop made by the Russell tourists was the week spent at "Russell-Purim" in Southwest India, the point at which Brother Davey has let shine the light of the "gospel of the kingdom."

If the "report" were to be read only by thoughtful persons it would serve no other end than to bring disdain upon the men whose names are signed to it. Unfortunately, Russell has made sure that it shall be read by millions of people, most of whom know little about geography, history and missions. The microbe of typhoid fever is a small and insignificant thing and its nature and habitat are not calculated to attract the general run of mankind to its study. Still, the world has learned in a hard school the peril of ignoring it. The cure for the dangerous bacteria of Russellism is sunlight.

We wonder just how small Russell felt when these proofs of his shams, deceptions and ignorance were so courteously placed before him! We doubt not that his cheeks glowed with even a brighter hue than appears on them in the highly colored reproductions that greet us from so many billboards.

As other evidences of Russell's duplicity we name the following:

The many names under which his organization operates, these changes being evidently made to divert suspicion in communities where the work has become too well-known under some older designation.

What seems an interesting instance of this form of duplicity has just now come to our notice. Recently there has been widely circulated in this vicinity—(and all over the country for aught we know)a new system of International Sunday School Lessons. Sample copies have invaded the studies of ministers, and have been placed in the hands of Sunday School superintendents, teachers and others. These were accompanied with order-blanks, blanks for the names and addresses of interested friends to whom sample copies might be sent, etc., etc.,and the accommodating statement made that through the generosity of friends who highly appreciated their value, they would be sent free regularly to any too poor to pay the subscription price.

Though this effort was made in the name of a Mr. Noble, whose address was given as one of the well known office buildings of New York City, we at once suspected the scheme as emanating from "Pastor" Russell, especially as one of the lessons was entitled "Hope for the Sodomites."

Several attempts to locate Mr. Noble resulted in failure, as he was reported not a tenant in the building named, nor known there; but a little further investigation revealed the following facts, viz.: that rooms No. 4030 and 4031, (being the ones named in the advertisement) had on their doors the sign of a large printing company (whose plant is located in a prominent Ohio town), and in addition in one corner the inscription, "Pastor Russell Lecture Bureau." Upon inquiry in these offices it was stated that Mr. Noble only received his mail there. Does not a light begin to dawn? In its rays we soon recalled another incident, that now assumed interest, viz.: having often been solicited by mail for printing by the company referred to, we at last on a personal visit from its New York representative, innocently submitted a copy of Dr. Haldeman's pamphlet against "Millennial Dawnism" for an estimate on a contemplated new edition, but no estimate or reply was ever received. Now does it not look as though there were some connection between the large printing company and Pastor Russell, or at least between its New York representative and the latter gentleman? If not, why should Pastor Russell's name appear on the door?

Again, does it not look as though it were this connection that accounts for the printing company's failure to give an estimate on the anti-Russell pamphlet? We are also wondering if there is a real flesh and blood Mr. Noble, or is this only a nom de plume for some "IGNOBLE" person or scheme!

His oft-repeated challenges to ministers to debate with him, when the fact is that when he is himself challenged he avoids the contest with specious excuses. We have read the correspondence in two cases where he has thus declined. It is true that he once debated in Cincinnati with a Disciple minister named White, of Dallas, but during its course over and over again, he violated the rules of the debate, among other things avoiding replies to his opponent's arguments for the sake of airing his doctrines to the audience, in order to secure a hearing for them and thus gain converts.

His wide advertisement of himself as the Pastor of "The Brooklyn Tabernacle," and of "The London Tabernacle": The former name was used by Dr. Talmage of his edifice in his day, while Russell's Tabernacle is a small chapel near the Brooklyn Bridge, formerly a Mission of Plymouth (Henry Ward Beecher's) Church; and yet by the use of the name "Brooklyn Tabernacle" he doubtless leads many to believe that he is the successor of Talmage. (One church is usually sufficient for the energies and ability of even an able pastor, but Pastor Russell has three of them, many leagues apart; two of them Tabernacles, and one a Temple.

One would think that he could easily secure a number of competent pastors from among his Bible students and ministers, whom he so highly praises, and place upon them the burden of some of these pastorates. Why not? Is it because he does not care to share his glorious pre-eminence with any lesser luminaries?)

Very politic also is his securing of the former home of Henry Ward Beecher as the residence for himself and workers.

We are not familiar with the churches of London, but knowing Russell as we do, venture to assert that his "London Tabernacle" is some abandoned or run-down church which he has rehabilitated to serve the purpose of a pretentious claim.

The following letter from Jamaica, B. W. I., received while writing this pamphlet, shows how Russell's finely woven fabric of misrepresentation has been spread abroad. The writer is a person of intelligence who realizes there is something wrong in these statements, and "who wants to know." Where there is one such, however, there are doubtless many others who accept all such items as Gospel truth.

DEAR SIR.—A "Watch Tower" of the 1st January came to me last night. In it I find a quotation from the London Star: "Pastor Russell, America's best known preacher...succeeded Henry Ward Beecher and De Witt Talmage at the Brooklyn Tabernacle."

I find pictures representing him as sitting in the former study of the late Dr. Beecher. I believe he occupies the residence of the late Dr. Beecher, but I do not think there is any connection between the two Tabernacles. Kindly let me know how the matter stands.

I find a quotation from the London Standard, thus: "The American Spurgeon has accepted a call from the London Tabernacle, Paddington." London Globe..."has accepted the pastorate of the London Tabernacle located at Lancaster Gate, W." N. Y. Herald: "Mr. Russell who is now here hopes to make the Paddington Church the centre of a great religious effort on lines similar to those of Dr. C. Spurgeon, the famous pastor of the S. London Tabernacle." The impression here given to the public is that he succeeds Spurgeon...

Surely none of our readers, in these days of the press agent's activity, require to have it suggested that it is just possible that the hand that so opportunely and modestly gathered these notices from the various newspapers in which they appeared, was the same hand that originally composed them and inspired their publication.

At any rate Russell inserts in his own paper for his own aggrandizement statements, which he knows are utterly untrue.

When will the wickedness of the wicked come to an end!

As another instance of untrustworthiness :

Russell teaches that "in the year A. D. 1874, Christ, the Bridegroom and Reaper, actually came;" further that "in 1914 the times of the Gentiles will end."

These statements are both grossly unscriptural, for I Thess. 4:15-18 teaches that when Christ comes in the air, (where Russell claims that he has been since 1874) believers will be caught up to meet him, whereas we know that Christians die and are buried since 1874 just as they have been in the past. As to the latter prophecy Russell is beginning to hedge very perceptibly.

He has too much at stake to have it all hang on one single date, and that so near, consequently he is becoming a little uncertain about the date himself and is disposed, (not to bring it nearer the present), but to postpone it to the future. The following account of the interview which a "Sun" reporter had with him recently has in it the element of amusement.

The reporter asked:

"Why do you say that the world will come to an end in 1914?"

"Really, it is 1915," said Mr. Russell. "I go by the Jewish chronology which makes October the beginning of a new year. I believe that there will be world-wide anarchy after October, 1914, and that all men who will not accept the truth by that time will suffer terribly. I get my interpretation from the prophet Daniel.

"Of course," added Mr. Russell quickly, "the end may not come in 1915. It may be 1916 or even a few years later. But as nearly as I can reckon, 1915 is the date for the Lord's punishment of the wicked.

The signs of the times all point to the end of the old era and the beginning of the new."

Another smile is caused by the following heading of a prominent article, in his paper, "MEN DARE TO THINK NOW!" Certainly, but we warrant they are not Russell's men, for if ever adherents of a cause, were compelled, at the cost of good standing, to surrender their own thinking, it is these very Russellites.

Many counts in the indictment of untrustworthiness have been made by the Brooklyn Eagle at different times. So galling were these to Russell that he sued that paper for libel, but the suit went against him, and far from retracting any of its statements, "The Eagle" has printed all of them from its various issues in the form of a supplement.

What kind of people is it that will cling to such a man? Mr. Ellis answers this question.

"As I have studied the faces of hundreds of Russell's followers I have judged them to be mechanics, farmers and small tradesmen. They are the weaklings from among these great groups; the kind of people who always must have a leader; they lend a ready ear to a religion of authority; they like to think that they are studying things out for themselves. Actually, of course, they are gulping down wholesale whatever is given them. They are charmed by the magic of the words "truth" and "light," and the Russell literature is freely sprinkled with these. It is a poor address in which the Russellites are not told that they have the "truth" and are in the "light."

Anybody who leaves their company "goes out from the light," or "forsakes the truth." Sentimental Tommy's favorite device is practiced with fine effect by Russell. It will be recalled that Tommy, who had a "way" with women, was accustomed to say to every one with whom he talked, "You are not like other girls." These Russellites are made to feel that they are "not like other people"; they have peculiar insight into truth, and they have progressed farther in the spiritual life than others. The gratifying doctrine that they are the real body of Christ, and that the "nominal" churches are all in blindness and benightedness, is laid as function to their soul.

Lured by literalism, these people fail to see the radical defects in Russell's teaching. Apparently it never occurs to them to apply the simple test of "pure religion and undefiled." The lack of forms of ministry to human need in Russellism seems never to have occurred to them. That Russell alone manages the organization seems not to be significant to the majority. They have made him their priest and pope and prophet; they will do his bidding in all things."

III. On the basis of the foregoing considerations we hold that "Pastor" Russell is Unworthy the confidence of all conscientious Christians, and that all such should individually and unitedly engage in exposing and opposing him as an ill-balanced pretender.

Many who once followed him have, at various times, severed their connection, and are now seeking to save others from their own experience.

Believers are "set for the defence of the Gospel," and as we read the Scriptures, we do not see that they have any choice as to bearing testimony against all teaching that has the effect of leading unstable souls astray.

Russell and his followers are they who "wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction," and while we cannot prevent them from doing this, we should seek to nullify their influence over others.

Though the "Brooklyn Eagle" is not a spiritual agency, we think it an occasion for gratitude, that it has revealed Russell in his true light. This paper publishes more sermons, and in all likelihood has a wider constituency among Christians, than any secular paper in the country, and no doubt, for this reason felt called to take effective action.

Mr. Ellis by his articles in "The Continent" is also entitled to grateful recognition for so thoroughly discrediting Russell.

Rev. J. J. Ross, of Hamilton, Ontario, Can., has set an example to ministers by writing a leaflet against Russell, and so effective was the effort that Russell brought suit against him, but as in his action against "The Eagle," the case went against him, the jury found no ground for libel and handed down a verdict "no bill." Since which time Mr. Ross has published an enlarged pamphlet.* In his suit against "The Eagle," Pastor Russell declined to take the stand as plaintiff, from which circumstance, our readers may draw their own conclusions.

This base deceiver should be shown, that if his followers are willing to enthrone him as their Pope; to bow to his will; to allow him to do their thinking for them, there are many Christians left who decline to do so, and whose heads are not turned with admiration, however his may be by the show of success that has attended his great claims and schemes. Pastor Russell certainly proves that he is familiar with Barnum's dictum about Americans liking to be fooled; at any rate it is hardly possible that since Barnum's day any one has ever so flaunted his portrait in the face of the public as this self-advertised "Pastor." When vanity, egotism and self-laudation become criterions of ministerial devotion to Christ, then will Russell shine as a star of the first magnitude. Like Theudas (the name means Praise) he is ever (by pictures of himself, newspaper references, public addresses and by all the many methods of modern advertising) "boasting himself to be somebody."

That he draws large throngs and has an immense following are by no means evidences of his authority, rather the reverse, for his is strictly a religion for the unregenerate man, hence its popularity. Here confronts us another amusing circumstance, viz.: On certain occasions, to evoke sympathy and as an appeal for greater devotion, Russell designates his followers "a little flock"; while at other times and to serve other purposes, a great parade is made of the large dimensions of his work, and its far-reaching influence.

Nor should his vast financial resources be allowed to convey any sense of true success, rather again just the contrary. His receipts must be immense, despite his much vaunted "no collections," but this can easily be explained: Give the average man a guarantee that there is no hell, and you will tickle him in the right place. Tell him that the heathen are not lost, and it meets his heartiest approval. Show him that the worst the very wicked (Russell's few incorrigibles, for it seems that even he is not equal to saving all sinners) need expect is non-existence after death, and he is "with you."

He will wax eloquent in expatiating upon, and in defending such an easy-going, "common sense," satisfying religion, and will subscribe handsomely and voluntarily for its promulgation.

…