Information listed below is provided for historial research purposes.

In the early 1900s, the number of Bible Students in Hamilton, Ontario were growing. Unable to undermine Pastor Russell on a Biblical basis, they turned to personal attacks instead, twisting the facts to suit their own agendas. One such minister was J. J. Ross. He published the booklet "Some Facts About the Self Styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell," and "More Facts ..." Within the first publication, he accused Pastor Russell of never having been appointed pastor by denominational authority. Pastor Russell was in point of fact appointed Pastor by the Alleghany Church and later by many other churches.

Pastor Russell sued Mr. Ross and was throughly interrogated by Ross's counsel, never allowing him to explain his answers. Ross later accused Pastor Russell with perjury, although he was never charged as such.

To learn more about this encounter visit Charles Taze Russell - Examining the Facts

(see https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2008/09/ross-alleged.html)

Pastor Russell's Answer

In a letter to Mr. E. J. Coward

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 has 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. He, however, is having troubles of his own. Since he began to attack me, he has split two Baptist Congregations--one in Toronto, the other in Hamilton. The last heard of him, he was in London, Ont., and again in trouble with his congregation. A lying spirit is sure to be a boomerang.

As respects my education in Greek and Hebrew: Not only do I not claim very special knowledge of either language, but I claim that not one minister in a thousand is either a Hebrew or a Greek scholar. To be able to spell out a few Greek words is of no earthly value. Nor is it necessary longer to study these languages, in order to have knowledge of the Bible. Our Presbyterian friends have gotten out at great cost Young's Analytical Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon Concordance, which anyone may procure. And our Methodist friends have issued a similar work-- Strong's Analytical Concordance and Lexicon. And there is a still older one entitled Englishman's Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon and Concordance. Additionally, Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon is a standard authority. The prices of these are not beyond the reach of the average man. By these works scholarly information respecting the original text of the Bible is obtainable. I have all four of these works and have used them faithfully. Very few college professors, even, would risk to give a critical translation of any text of Scripture without consulting these very works of reference, which are standard. To merely learn to read the Greek and Hebrew without a six years' course in their grammars is more likely to hinder than to help in Bible study; far better take the acknowledged scholarship to which I have referred.

Additionally I remind you of the many translations of the Bible now extant--all of them very good. I have all of these and find them useful in comparison in the study of any text--one sometimes giving a thought which another may not. The other day, for curiosity's sake, I counted Bibles in different translations, etc., in my study and found that I have thirty-two.

As respects my business dealings, Brother Coward, I need not remind you that American Courts are very strict and that if anybody feels that I have wronged him out of a dollar, he would have no difficulty in haling me into Court. You have my assurance, dear Brother, that I do not owe any man on earth a penny and that I have never taken a penny from anyone unjustly. On the contrary, as you know, I have spent several small fortunes in seeking to do good to my fellow-men --in helping them to a better understanding of God and the Bible. Having once been an infidel myself, and having subsequently found that I had confused the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of the creeds, and that the Bible's teaching is a glorious, grand doctrine, it has since been my business and pleasure to do all in my power to help fellow-mortals out of darkness into the true light.

If you choose, you may make such extracts of this as are likely to reach intelligent people through any of the newspapers. But really I care little for what men may say or think about me. Of course, such things are painful; but they are only what the Bible tells us will be more or less the experience of all who would be loyal to God and His Word. So persecuted they the saints and prophets of the past-- even the Master Himself. And as for how I got my education --it seems to me of little consequence. I have enough to serve my own purposes, and, apparently, too much to please Rev. Ross and others of his type, who, not knowing how to meet my theological teachings, do not attempt to do so at all, but merely charge me with ignorance. As I read his vile slanders I thought of what the New Testament says about St. Peter and St. John. They were so woefully ignorant that all the people perceived that they were "ignorant and unlearned men." If they were living today, I suppose that the Rev. Ross and Co. would be after them to show them up as not having been ordained by the Baptists and not knowing anything anyway.

Pastor Russell's Reply on Ordination

in reply to Mr. E. J. Coward

I need not tell you how absurdly untrue Rev. Ross' statements are in respect to my ordination; but really it seems strange how little people use their thinking faculties in such matters--how few who would read the Rev. Ross' statements would see their absurdity. For instance, he is a Baptist and was authorized or ordained by the Baptists--not by Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics or Episcopalians. Would an Episcopalian recognize Rev. Ross' ordination? Surely not! Would a Roman Catholic recognize his ordination? Of course not. Ordination merely means authorization. The Catholics will authorize, or ordain, those only who belong to their faith. The Baptists will ordain, or authorize, those only who are Baptists. How foolish, then, to talk about ordination from their standpoint!

But ordination from my standpoint, the Bible standpoint, the standpoint of an increasing number of Bible students all the world over, is different. It is a Divine ordination. But our Baptist friends and our Methodist friends would say that they, also, recognize Bible ordination, that they are not [R5544 : page 287] merely dependent upon each other. But we challenge them to prove that they ever had a Divine ordination or that they ever think of it. They merely think of a sectarian ordination, or authorization, each from his own sect or party.

True, Catholics and Episcopalians are different and do recognize a Divine ordination. They claim that Jesus ordained His Twelve Apostles and that these have successors in the Bishops, who are styled "apostolic bishops," and under the theory of "apostolic succession" have the same power as the original Twelve Apostles to ordain and to teach. Bible students believe that they err in this claim and that the doctrine of "apostolic succession" is unscriptural. The Bible recognizes only Twelve Apostles. More than that, the Bible denounces all apostolic bishops as being in error. Referring to them, Jesus said that they claimed to be apostles, and are not, but do lie. (Revelation 2:2.) In other words, contrary to the superstitions of Catholics and Episcopalians, their bishops have no authority whatever to ordain anybody.

Visit Charles Taze Russell - Examining the Facts Blog

(See https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2017/01/j-j-ross-res.html)

James St. Baptist Church

James Baptist was designed by Joseph Connolly and built between 1878 and 1882. Connolly trained under architect James Joseph McCarthy, regarded as the "Irish Pugin" because he embraced the principles of church architecture laid down by the famed Gothic architect Augustus Welby Pugin.

James Street Baptist was the only non-Catholic church Connolly designed. One motivation for its impressive design was a friendly competition with St. Paul's Presbyterian Church on the other side of Jackson, which had set the bar high for architectural distinction.

The building went up for sale in summer 2012 and was sold in early 2013 to Stanton Renaissance for $610,000. The company partnered with Hamilton-based McCallum Sather Architects to redevelop the property.

Stanton Renaissance submitted a 129-page report requesting a demolition permit in September, arguing that poor construction and maintenance had resulted in structural problems that required a partial demolition. 

Company president Louie Santaguida argued in an interview in October, "The extent of the damage to the building's structural integrity was not known at the time of purchase, and after engineers completed an intrusive investigation, the structure was deemed unsound."

The City issued a "minor alteration" permit to demolish minorly alter 80 percent of the building, a staff decision that has raised some serious questions about the process that was followed.

Stanton Renaissance has not yet submitted any redevelopment plans to the City. (Check Website to see demolition photos and read rest of the article.)

https://raisethehammer.org/article/2208/james_street_baptist_alteration_in_pictures