I am aware of what Zoe wrote. It's incorrect. It defines Adventism as any belief in the near return of Christ. This ignores the three strands of Millennialism. Zoe supports the claim of Russellite Adventism with a citation from Rogerson. Rogerson did not support his claim with a reference to an original source.
Most "modern" scholarship would tend to use Millennialist, Literalist or age to come in lower case. There is a brief bibliography in Separate Identity vol 2. An example is Julia Neuffer in her The Gathering of Israel: A Historical Study of Early Writings. Writing about Storrs abandoning Adventism, she wrote:
By October, 1844, wrote L.[ewis] C. Gunn of Philadelphia, some in one congregation there had adopted a similar view, and Charles Fitch was at the same time (not long before his death) teaching probation for the heathen after the Advent. Others, added Gunn, like himself believed that at or just before the Advent “many of the Jews will be miraculously converted, and hail His appearing with the exclamation, ‘blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’” All these, he said, “had changed from their former belief, and differed entirely from Mr. Miller, and the great body of advent believers in this country – but agreeing with the Literalists.”
Literalism is Age to Come belief.
You may be looking in the wrong era. Literalism/Age to Come belief is an extension of colonial era in American and the 16th Century belief in England. The Literalist/Age to Come system was controversial in that era, but pervasive.
Mom wrote in her introductory essay:
Literalists and Adventists had significantly differing hermeneutical approaches. Literalists followed a grammatical-historical or literal hermeneutic. Millerite Adventists and its descendent religions follow an allegorical-typological hermeneutic. William Bridge (c. 1600 –1670), a Separatist [sometimes called Independent] clergyman espoused Biblical Literalism, and in doing so tells us that it went under several names in Martin Luther’s day. Among these were “Vocabulists, Literalists, Grammatists, and Creaturists.” These titles, not all of which were meant to be complimentary, referred to the belief that the Bible said what it meant to say. Its vocabulary and its grammar was meant literally and framed so human creation could understand its plain words. Bridge suggested that in his day some were following the path of the wildly speculative theologies of the Reformation era and just as liable then as in the past to “be drawn into Popery.” C. F. Sweet quoted Martin Luther, J. A. Ernesti, Vertringa, and Jeremy Taylor noting that they all followed a literalist path.
Literalist/Age to Come/Restitution believers represent a broad spectrum of belief, but the principal unifying factor is belief that the Bible is not allegorical unless it plainly states something is an allegory. American scholars tend to focus on Colonial Era expositors when they consider Millenarian belief. Most American writers on prophetic subjects in the period up to 1850 were Literalists [Same animal as Age to Come]. In her opening essay [vol 2] mom briefly traces some of the pre-Russell Literalists. You may also want to read Jan Stilson: An Overview of the Leadership and Development of the Age to Come in the United States: 1832-1871, Journal from the Radical Reformation, Fall 2001. Jan is a Church of God, General Conference (Atlanta) historian.
Neuffer touches on the differences between Adventists and Age to Come believers, writing:
Indeed, the winds of doctrine developed hurricane force in 1850 among the Adventists – especially the majority group – over “the age to come.” This was a new name for the old Literalism that the Millerites had denounced as “Judaism.” The result was the emergence of an unorganized but distinct age-to-come party, comprising those who adopted the Literalist view of the millennium. The leading exponents described it in slightly varying forms, but they all saw it as a period of continuing probation, with mortal Jews in literal Jerusalem. ...
Where did the age-to-come doctrine of the 1850s come from? Possibly it stemmed chiefly from the British Literalist publications that had been circulated among the Millerites. However, the name seems to have come from the title of the 1850 editorials and the 1851 book by Joseph Marsh. Certainly his paper, The Advent Harbinger (Rochester, N.Y.), became the sounding board for the doctrine, although other individuals had taught it before him.
Surprisingly, Neuffer did not know that Age to Come is a Biblical phrase as found in the King James Bible. In fact the Age to Come theologies extend back to Renaissance/Reformation writers, primarily English, Dutch and German. Though they believed in the near return of Christ, they were not Adventists and would not have been accepted into the Adventist fellowship because of strong differences in doctrine. None of Russell's doctrines trace to Adventism. Without exception they came from the Age to Come movement, variously called Restitution, Literalism, Church of God (Which caused confusion with Campbelites and others). Mom and Schulz present a long list of examples in both volumes of Separate Identity.
