The Righteous Remnant

The House of David

Robert S. Fogarty

• Publisher: The Kent State University Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781612778488
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Social History
• Index: History

Many Americans associate the House of David with its bearded barnstorming baseball teams of the 1920s and '30s. Others may recall the sex scandal associated with the group, a scandal that gave newspapers during the first years after World War I some added spice. Still, others may know it as a religious communal society founded in 1903, which has a few adherents today.

What is this strange group and how can these diverse images be reconciled? In the first in-depth study of the House of David, originally published in 1981, Robert S. Fogarty places the sect in the Anglo-Israelite millennial tradition that goes back to seventeenth-century England, which produced prophets like the mystic Joanna Southcott and from which arose sects in England, Australia, and the United States. Their reading of the Book of Revelation promised the saving of a "righteous remnant" of humanity who would gather in one place to await the millennium. Evangelist Benjamin Purnell became the seventh prophet in the line of this tradition and, with his bigamous wife, Mary, established a community for its followers in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

The House of David was a celibate communal society controlled by the Purnells, and it attracted members who exchanged their worldly goods for the security of salvation. At its height, the community had more than 700 members and prospered by running farms, a canning company, and an amusement park and hosting popular touring bands and the traveling baseball teams.

But there were defectors, and from them emerged rumors of oppressive conditions, sexual misconduct on the part of the prophet himself, hastily arranged group marriages, and financial wrongdoing that led to a series of civil suits. The allegations drove Purnell into hiding, and the State of Michigan launched an elaborate trial against the colony.

The Righteous Remnant is more than the story of the rise and fall of a religious community. By examining its religious roots, the staunch testimony of its members in the face of demonstrated charges, and the social relations within the colony itself, we can begin to understand the attraction that such "social contracts" can exert. The House of David is now a remnant itself, but other religious groups continue to grow and bind members to them in the same ways.

CHAPTER ONE

The Prophetic Tradition

The righteous remnant… will be assembled once more in Palestine and Yahweh will dwell among them as ruler and judge. He will reign from a rebuilt Jerusalem, a Zion which has become the spiritual capitol of the world and to which all nations flow.

Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium

Scholars have made repeated attempts to chart the history of communal enthusiasm in both the Christian and non-Christian worlds, yet the specific origins of a particular group are often difficult to trace precisely. The chiliastic mind and the apocalyptic mind infected early Christian settlements, drawing on a rich Judaic tradition that foretold of a new Palestine, a new Eden, in which the chosen people would gather together in a New Jerusalem under the just and benevolent rule of Yahweh. “Promises of future compensation for present affliction,” to quote Norman Cohn, were part of the early Judaic heritage and current in the belief system of the early church.¹ Whether imminent or remote, the notion of a coming kingdom on earth was a strong and enduring part of the Judeo-Christian world view. Despite Church disapproval, chiliastic schemes and the apocalyptic mentality nevertheless persisted in the “obscure world of popular religion.”² The Essenes and the early Gnostics were both part of this tradition, and others sustained it throughout early Church history and into the medieval period. Heresy trials were launched against individuals connected with such groups as the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Adamites, and the elusive Luciferians.³ Such groups rose and fell with their own peculiar interpretation of the failings of the Church and with their own promises of a new dispensation and a new order. Persecuted minorities found analogies between their own condition and that of the early Israelites, and while “each fresh translation of the Bible and the authorized version was being prepared in the early seventeenth century they gave fresh texts to sustain the hopes that the Lord could gather in the elect to himself in Jerusalem.”⁴

Belief in the special role that the Israelites were destined to play in the ingathering of the elect can be traced far back into history, but my concern is with that portion of the history specifically relevant to the House of David, located at Benton Harbor, Michigan, from 1903 until the present. The best place to begin a study of their history is, however, in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England. At that time there was a significant rebirth of millennialist fervor which resulted, some three centuries later, in the formation of a colony in western Michigan. For it is in seventeenth-century England that the first movement of modern millenarianism became a potent social and religious force.⁵ Keith Thomas suggests that it was a combination of prayer and prophecy that produced a “notable shift from passive to active millenarianism” after 1640. For Thomas, the shift was a dramatic one:

Probably more important than the effects of high prices and other economic hardships of the late 1640’s was the apocalyptic sense generated by an awareness of living in a time of unprecedented political change. The realization that the Civil War and the execution of the King had no parallel in earlier English history exerted a decisive influence…. It also accounts for the conviction held by so many of the Civil War sects that the period in which they lived was somehow the climax of human history, the era for which all previous events had been a mere preparation. For the Fifth Monarchy men it was above all the execution of King Charles which left the way open for King Jesus.⁶

After the execution of Charles I in 1649, the Fifth Monarchy men began to exert a strong social and political force; they hoped to hasten the New Jerusalem by their own political power. With the return of Charles II to the throne in 1660, their influence waned, leaving England little to fear from these Christian zealots, who had once been able, some argue, to overturn the government by the weight of their swords and the strength of their vision.⁷ Yet the interregnum was a remarkable period, a time when many believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that the old basis for political legitimacy had been swept away. The 1649 publication of Gerard Winnstanley’s The New Law of Righteousness led to the formation of the Diggers, a radical religious sect who seized and dug up the common land at St. George’s Hill, Wheybridge, in defiance of the local landlords. Winnstanley preached that he was “of the race of the Jews” and that since the time of William the Conqueror the Godly people of England had lived under tyranny and oppression. Winnstanley’s followers promised to make barren land fruitful and to distribute the benefits to the poor and needy: “When the Lord doth show me the place and manner, he will have us that are called the common people, to manure and work the common land.”⁸

Although the Diggers had a short history they were one of a number of groups that sought an outlet for social and religious grievances. It is essential to remember that such groups mirrored more than political and social discontent. Prophetic leadership and sect formation reflected the belief that England was a nation favored by God; that Biblical exegesis led to a perfected life; and that divine inspiration could come to any man. This notion, identifiable in the Bible but subject to modern interpretation and geographic modifications, of a new chosen people—chosen but open to be led by any man or woman from any station in life—was fundamental to communal religious experiments throughout the next century and a half, as we can see with the Shakers, the Mormons, and the House of David.⁹

Numerous prophetic figures came to the fore in this period. John Robins was proclaimed “King of Israel, Melchisdec [sic] and Adam restored” in 1650, declaring that within twenty days before Christmas he would divide the seas and bring home the true Jews to the land of Judea. Josuah Garment, a Ranter and disciple of Robins, John Robins, and Thomas Tany all hinted at the close connection between Israel and the English people. Tany had a revelation in 1649 that he was a Jew of the tribe of Reuben, and he then assumed the name “Thearan John, High Priest of the Jews” and “Thean Ram Taniah, Leader of the People.”¹⁰ He later claimed to be the Earl of Essex and heir to the throne of Charles I with a claim on the French throne as well. Finally, he pitched a tent on Eltham Common, near London, where the Israelites were to gather before their departure to Jerusalem. Influenced by the German mystic Boehme and fired by his own imagination, he was last heard from in Amsterdam in 1668 pursuing his Israelite crusade.¹¹ The practice of taking on a new name is not uncommon with individuals who are “twice born.” Among the Israelite prophets the usurping of regal titles served the same psychological function as the magical name change. One later prophet would change his name to Jezreel, and another would fix on Milton as the new core for his religious identity.

Particularly affected by this upsurge in religious prophecy and enthusiasm—and subject to scrutiny as potential witches—were the Quakers.¹² A good example of Quaker enthusiasm during the period is the career of James Nayler, the so-called “Quaker Jesus,” who within months of his conversion by George Fox in 1651 had a vision announcing he was the messiah. As was often the case with such Ranters, he was jailed for blasphemy, yet followers flocked to him. In 1656 he began his famous ride from London to Bristol, surrounded by a band of his followers chanting “Holy, Holy.” They believed they were bringing Jesus to his native city, but they only attracted the attention of the authorities, and Nayler was brought before a special Parliamentary committee to answer charges of blasphemy. Although he was a meek Christ, his prosecutors thought him dangerous enough to pronounce a cruel punishment. With Cromwell’s blessing, Parliament found Nayler guilty of “horrid blasphemy.” Rather than serve the death penalty they mercifully had his tongue bored through with a hot iron and branded him on the forehead with the letter B. Afterward he was sent to Bristol and paraded through the city sitting backwards on a horse before being jailed. Throughout all this Nayler remained steadfast in his belief that he had a Christ-like mission.¹³

Women were prominent among the many self-proclaimed prophets of seventeenth-century England. The conventional outlets for religious expression, the pulpit and the pamphlet, were denied women. But some women found a certain acceptance in the unconventional role of prophetess. Keith Thomas recounts that between 1647 and 1651 “the deliberations of Oliver Cromwell and his colleagues were interrupted, so that some obscure prophet, often a woman, could be admitted to deliver her message.”¹⁴ The belief that God was on the prophet’s side enabled women to gain an audience heretofore denied them. The social and political implications of such prophetic messages have not been explored fully, though some recent studies have shown the way. Both men and women flourished in this prophetic role during the interregnum, but the restoration of Charles II was a fatal blow to all the dissenting groups, though chiliastic figures did continue to appear in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century.¹⁵

Prophets did continue to produce new visions and new charters for the commonwealth, but their pronouncements were more moderate in tone and their actions more restrained than during the heady days of the 1640s and 1650s. For example, Jane Lead, a disciple of Jacob Boehme, published The Heavenly Crowd Now Breaking in 1681 and eventually gathered about her a set of disciples into the “Philadelphian Society.” The Philadelphians believed in “the real advent of Christ, the resurrection and transformation of all believers, and the establishment of the glorified church on earth.”¹⁶ These followers of Jacob Boehme did have a precursor in Richard Baxter’s group of Behminists who believed in the perfectability of man in this world.¹⁷ Boehme’s works had been introduced into England in 1644 and were translated into English between 1647 and 1662. His writings were read for their mystical and occult qualities. The Behminists, like the Quakers, were ultimately persecuted for their beliefs, but under Jane Lead’s direction they took on the characteristics of a sect and greatly influenced the course of English mysticism. At one point they came in contact with the Camisards in France, who were to play an influential role in Shaker development. Although such groups as the Philadelphians were organized in London, their influence was often felt on the Continent, as there developed an international brotherhood that fed on prophetical writings and messianic beliefs and that actually constituted a movement toward new forms of religious inspiration and worship.¹⁸ The eighteenth-century Avignon Society is a good example of this trend. Thus, though the restoration had temporarily succeeded in placing the lid on much dynamic religious activity, the events of 1640–60 had set in motion a current that would find an outlet during the next three centuries in religious prophecy, social radicalism, and utopian community organizations.

During the early eighteenth century new forms, new voices, and new communities did appear in England to challenge orthodox patterns at every turn. The French Cevenoles found in England a refuge from French Catholic persecution in 1707; Count Frederich Zinzendorf introduced the Moravian religious groups in 1743; Ann Lees organized her shaking Quakers at Bolton in 1774 and by 1800 had even established a series of communities on America’s eastern frontier.¹⁹ Swedenborgianism began to inform the mystical tradition after 1757 and, of course, influenced Blake and Coleridge in their varied enterprises.²⁰ With the end of the eighteenth century, England had a substantial, rich history of religious enthusiasm and communal and prophetic sects.

It was the Behminist influence that served as the catalyst for the first “true” prophet in the line of seven that leads directly to Benjamin Purnell, founder of the House of David. Richard Brothers, “Prince of the Hebrews,” first came in contact—probably in 1784—with a strange mystical society at Avignon, France, known to outsiders as the “Avignon Society,” but to its members as the “New Israel.” Its creed has been described as a “crazy blend of Catholicism, Swedenborgianism and occultism,” and it had an immediate political program in mind: to make the Polish count Tadeusz Grabianka first King of Poland and eventually ruler of the world. “As God’s new messiah,” Grabianka “would conquer Palestine at the head of the Polish armies, transfer his capital to Jerusalem, and extend his sway, till every King surrendered his crown to him. But first since the old Israel was apostate he must gather a new tribe, whom he grouped into twelve tribes with old Biblical names.”²¹

When Grabianka arrived in England in 1782, he attended the salon of the mystical Jacob Duche, former chaplain to the First Continental Congress, and then a Loyalist outcast in London. While living in London during the 1780s Duche threw open his house to students interested in Boehme and Swedenborg, many of whom became involved in the religious enthusiasms of the next forty years. Although Richard Brothers did not attend these salons, we know that he agreed with Grabianka that a king should rule the world and there is a possibility that Brothers visited at Avignon.²² However, certainly one of his supporters had visited the society and after a prolonged stay in 1789 came away with the following impressions: “Nothing could exceed the brotherly kindness shown us by these men, who told us we were welcome to the house provided by the Lord for those children whom he might be pleased to send to the reunion from all parts of the earth. They said that whatever was there was ours as much as theirs, that they had not anything they called their own, the Lord had done away with a distinction of mine and thine in their minds.”²³ During their seven months’ stay William Bryan and another supporter of Brothers, John Wright, read and copied extracts from the mystical journals of the Society, “by which we were informed of the many changes taking place and to take place, in the nations of the world, to prepare the way of the Lord’s coming, and the restoration of his people, the whole house of Israel, according to the prophecies of the scriptures.”²⁴

Richard Brothers was born at Placentia, Newfoundland, in 1757, appropriately enough on December 25. His father was a gunner in the English forces stationed there during the Seven Years’ War, and young Brothers was sent to England to enter the naval school at Woolwich. In 1771 he went to sea as a midshipman, advancing through the ranks and taking part in the “Victory of the Saints” against the French in the West Indies in 1782. In January, 1783, he was promoted to lieutenant, but six months later was retired on half pay when the Peace of Versailles forced a reduction in the fleet. From 1783 to 1786 Brothers traveled to various European countries and for a period of time served in the merchant marine. He married Elizabeth Hassall in 1786 and settled at Bristol. When he found shortly afterward that his wife had been unfaithful to him, a separation soon followed.²⁵

Brothers lived in London on his retirement salary at first, but toward the end of 1789 he began to entertain doubts about his past military life, which was now “totally repugnant” to him. He doubted whether he ought to hold his commission or to take the oath of loyalty required of him every six months when he drew his pension, which he now saw as “the wages of plunder, bloodshed and murder.”²⁶ Whether influenced by the Quakers or simply by the belief that he could not serve allegiance to a false sovereign is unclear, but his letters to the admiralty began to question the oath-taking procedure. First, he argued that swearing was wrong and second, that such a declaration, though supposedly a “voluntarily made oath,” was in fact compulsory. The authorities were impressed by his second argument and changed the oath; however, on the first requirement, the oath-taking itself, they stood firm. Since Brothers would not take the oath, the pension was withheld and the stage set for a legal and political battle.

During this period it appears that Brothers began an intensive reading of the Bible, Jane Lead’s Philadelphian tract A Fountain of Gardens, and the English mystic John Lacy’s Prophetical Writings (1707), which ha...