Horace Randle

Photograph from the Duluth Evening Herald - 1900

Horace A. Randle is mentioned in the Proclaimers book (page 418) where his efforts to share the message of Millennial Dawn with other missionaries in the Orient is described. Horace had been a medical missionary in China. As detailed by Caroline Wah in Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Empire of the Sun (Journal of Church and State – January 1, 2002) he had received the message himself from a Presbyterian missionary named Miss C B Downing (now know to be Calista Burke Downing) who had sent materials to other missionaries including Horace, who was then a Baptist missionary. Horace had been in China since 1876. Eventually Horace’s new understanding of scripture through Millennial Dawn caused him to resign and leave China.

The record cards in Baptist mission archives show the date and reason for his resignation.

Horace made his way to America and visited CTR in the Spring of 1900 (see ZWT May 15, 1900, reprints pages 2632-33). From there he made his way back to England, his home country.

In 1901 he published an eight page tract on Future Probation which also advertised The Plan of the Ages by Pastor C T Russell.

The address on the tract takes us to the census returns for London in 1901 which describe him as “Medical Missionary and Preacher, Millennial Dawn Christian.” He was then living with his wife Ellen, and son Arnold.

In 1906 Horace was still espousing Millennial Dawn doctine and several newspapers contain advertisements of talks he was scheduled to give in Salford, in what are called the British Midlands. From the Wharfdale and Airedale Observer, May 11, 1906,

In 1907 he started a short-lived magazine of his own entitled Good News of the Coming Age published in Salford. At least one issue is in the British Library, but only a small portion can be copied, and then only by someone physically visiting the library. Until this can be examined we do not know whether he was still in harmony with Watch Tower thought at the time.

In the 1911 census, Horace was in Salford at his sister’s home, along with his mother and two brothers. His younger sister, Florcence, is single and a school teacher. Horace’s wife and son Arnold were still living in London. References to Millennial Dawn have now disappeared; he was now just described as Medical Missionary formerly of China, retired.

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

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

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

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

Alex. Evans replies to Mr. Horace A. Randle

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

Olive Branch, La., Sept. 3d, 1914.

Editor St. Paul Enterprise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I live for those who love me,

And awaits my coming too;

And the good that I can do."

For the cause that lacks assistance,

For the future in the distance,

For the Heaven that smiles above me,

For the wrong that needs resistance,

For those who know me true;

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

ALEX. EVANS.

(end of transcript)

Randle died in the Salford area in the latter part of 1926 aged 71. His obituary in the Acton Gazette for Friday, November 19, 1926 (the area in London where his wife lived) suggests he had continued practicing medicine, but had returned to the Baptist fold. There is no mention of his former Watch Tower connections.

For fuller details of the history of both Calista Downing and Horace Randle, see the chapter In all the Earth: China etc. in the forthcoming Separate Identity volume 2 by Schulz and de Vienne.

Charles Taze Russell and Andrew Eychaner - a series

This is a story of how an apparent account of Charles Taze Russell speaking at an Age to Come conference in 1895 raised questions on the reliability of sources, even those that on face value seemed irrefutable. Questions were raised back in 2011 but the queries were not solved until 2015, and then only by accident. It’s a lesson on the need to always check historical “sources” carefully, and take the checking as far as you can if something doesn’t seem right.

Three articles follow – the first two from 2011 and then one from 2015. Ideally they should have just been rewritten into one composite whole, but that would have been a lot of work for what might be deemed a peripheral issue. So all three articles are simply reproduced here in date order, and there will be an overlap of material in them. Those interested, but without the stamina to read the lot, should probably go straight to article number 3 which is also illustrated.

Eychaner and Russell 1 - What Really Happened in 1895?

Recent research (written in 2011) has made a connection between the work of C. T. Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR) and the Bible Student movement, and that of 19^th century Age to Come congregations, called variously One Faith, Abrahamic Faith, Church of God, Restitutionists, etc. CTR’s first books and booklets were reviewed in the Restitution newspaper with diminishing enthusiasm, as the groups veered apart. Early reviews were tolerably friendly; some later reviews were positively hostile.

But into this scenario is one incident that does not appear to fit the pattern. In 1895 a Restitutionist evangelist, A. J. Eychaner organized a series of meetings for his Iowa conference. According to his personal diary a featured speaker throughout the event was none other than CTR.

This was picked up by Mark Mattison in his well-known article The Provenance of Russellism as proof that Church of God and Millennial Dawn still cooperated at times in a vague sort of way. Mattison describes CTR as the guest speaker at the Church of God Conference in Marshalltown, Iowa, August 16 to August 25, 1895. He writes: (quote) The conference would not be a particularly unique one if it were not for the guest speaker. The record indicates that "C. T. Russell" opened the conference with a sermon on Friday and addressed the conference throughout the week. Russell's final sermon concerned "the greatness of God" and was delivered at 2:30 on the last Sunday. After being briefly mentioned a few times in Eychaner's record, Russell's name disappears. He attended the conference, preached several sermons, and left (end of quote).

Even though Mattison then correctly stresses CTR’s developing theology that would preclude close cooperation, just his attendance at an 1895 conference is a bit like a piece of a jigsaw that doesn’t seem to fit the picture.

As noted above, the Restitution had not been at all happy about the activities of CTR and Millennial Dawn. For example, in the Restitution for May 16, 1894 page 2 a letter is printed from E. D. McClees which referred to CTR’s ministry. His letter reads in part: Many false prophets have arisen among us and are scattering the flock...some are following Russell’s teachings ...we started out to teach in a nice tent...but the adversary began his work calling it the “Free Gospel Tent”...Other preachers were allowed to come (he then gives a whole list including SDAs, Advent Christians and Millennial Dawn people)...it has become a perfect Babel (end of quote). He concluded with a plea for help.

McClees bemoaned his lack of control over (amongst others) Millennial Dawn people. But at a State conference, the Age to Come people did have control. For a high profile Restitution figure like Eychaner to then allow the actual author of Millennial Dawn onto a shared platform throughout a 10 day series of meetings seems incongruous. Had word got out, it would not have sat at all well with the McClees of the Age to Come community.

It is true that Eychaner had previously reviewed CTR’s book The Time is at Hand in The Restitution for February 4, 1891 page 1. This review was far less censorious than previous reviews of Divine Plan, Food for Thinking Christians and Object and Manner. In the review Eychaner even called CTR “Brother” and made a conciliatory statement “Submitted in all charity”. So if anyone from the Age to Come movement would share a platform with CTR it would be someone like Eychaner. ONLY THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

No matter how strong the surface evidence appears, August 1895 is a non-event. Mattison is in error – although in fairness to him it was Eychaner who erred originally. And in fairness to Eychaner, he never expected people to be scrutinizing his diary a century later. Exactly how and why this happened, we will discuss below. But it serves as a warning when conducting historical research.

First, we must establish that Eychaner’s diary is, in fact, incorrect. This is quite easy to do because the movement’s paper The Restitution carried notices and reports of their various State meetings and conventions. The advance notice for this specific event is found in The Restitution for August 7, 1895 page 2. Here the complete program for the Marshalltown conference over August 15-25, 1895 is given, to encourage readers to make the journey and attend.

It is a simple matter to compare the program with Eychaner’s diary of what actually happened on the day. There were obviously some changes between intent and realization, and Eychaner’s notes are sometimes brief, but a clear pattern is seen.

We will list first what Eychaner wrote in his diary, and then compare it with what had officially been advertised in The Restitution a week or so before.

One diary page lists Eychaner’s expenses which for August 17 reads – paid Bro Russel (sic) (Lord’s Box)  1.00 (one dollar). There is obviously no advance detail of this in the newspaper, but at the outset, Eychaner paying CTR a dollar expenses doesn’t sound right.

Coming to the actual program Eychaner’s diary for August 16 says Friday – C. T. Russell – sermon.

The Restitution program for August 16 says “Our Duty” C. W. Russell.

Eychaner’s diary for Sunday August 18 says 2 pm Russell (no initials).

The Restitution program for August 18 says 2 pm “What to do to be saved?” C. W. Russell.

Eychaner’s diary for Monday August 19 says Primmer, Russell and Kennedy.

The Restitution program for August 19 lists J. M. Primmer and C. F. Kennedy as speakers, but there is no mention of Russell.

Eychaner’s diary for August 20 says Chown, Essays, Russell.

The Restitution program for August 20 lists G. W, Chown, Essays and “talks by all” but there is no specific mention of Russell.

(The above two references simply suggest that Russell may not been scheduled originally, but spoke anyway on these two dates).

Eychaner’s diary for August 22 says C. T. Russell.

The Restitution program for August 22 says 8 pm “Obedience to the truth” C. W. Russell.

Eychaner’s diary for August 25 says C. T. Russell 2:3 “Greatness of God”.

The Restitution program for August 25 says 2.30 pm “Now is the day of salvation” C. W. Russell.

There is no doubt that while some aspects of the program evolved, the diary and the Restitution announcement are covering the same event – the Marshalltown conference held over August 15-25, 1895. However, no matter what Eychaner wrote in his diary, we obviously have two different Russells here – one is C. T. Russell and the other, C. W. Russell. To compound the problem, the C in both cases stands for Charles.

So who was the mysterious C. W. Russell, who shared Eychaner’s platform?

C. W. Russell first appeared in the pages of The Restitution in the issue for July 11, 1894 page 3, in the article Iowa Tent Work written by Eychaner. C. W. Russell is assisting in tent work with him. (A Mrs C. W. Russell had been down as a contributor to the Special Evangelist Fund for several months prior to this).

The Restitution for July 18, 1894 page 3 in the article The Iowa Conference has C. W. Russell presented with a teaching certificate. He has come to them from the Garfield Congregation in Chicago with letters of commendation. Two letters of recommendation are printed on this page, one of which gives his names as Chas. W. Russell.

By The Restitution for September 12, 1894 page 3 the Iowa conferences were being advertised in press releases signed by both A. J. Eychaner and C. W. Russell.

C. W. Russell worked with Eychaner up to and including the August 1895 Marshalltown event. But not long after this he disappears from the pages of The Restitution, although Mrs C. W. Russell is still listed on occasion making contributions.

So what conclusion can we draw from the above? Simply put, the C. W. Russell at Eychaner’s conference had no connection with CTR, the subject of this blog. CTR never attended this Church of God meeting. CTR never appeared on their platform on this occasion as guest speaker.

Which raises an interesting question – what possessed Eychaner to consistently write the wrong initial in his diary – to confuse writers and historians a hundred years later? And once confused, the error to be thereafter repeated as established fact?

We can only speculate; but it is possible to have a name in one’s mind – yet continually confuse them with someone else – not literally, but just in name.

To illustrate, an elderly relative of mind used to regularly confuse a name in his congregation. To protect the guilty, I will provide parallel names to illustrate the point. Imagine an attendee  named Debbie Richards who regularly wishes to share in commenting. The chairman of the meeting has obviously seen the film “Singing in the Rain” and has the name of the actress Debbie Reynolds implanted in his mind. Forever after, poor Debbie Richards is going to be announced as Debbie Reynolds. The brother knew what he meant. The congregation – after a certain hilarity – knew what he meant. Debbie Richards sighed a bit, but also knew what he meant. It was just the way things were – forever thereafter. Perhaps Eychaner had Charles T. Russell on the brain – having reviewed his book, or because he was much in the minds of Age to Come groups through the proselyting work of the Bible students. Eychaner knew who he meant. He just didn’t quite write who he meant. And he wasn’t to know that a century later people would pore over his handwritten notes and assume infallibility.

That’s my theory.

The moral? With ancient sources we are at the mercy of the imperfections of humans and their fallible memories, let alone, in many cases, their own agendas. If at all possible, it is good to establish something out of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Always go back to primary rather than secondary sources if they are available. Even then, we have to exercise certain cautions, particularly if something seems like a piece from the wrong jigsaw.

Caveat lector. Let the reader beware.

Eychaner and Russell 2 - An Addenda

Earlier this year (written in 2011) this blog featured an article on Eychaner and Russell, relating to an 1895 Church of God conference where it was long believed that Charles T. Russell both attended and spoke. The aim of the article was to show that while A. J. Eychaner certainly referred to C. T. Russell in his diary, he did not mean our Charles T. Russell, but rather a Charles W. Russell who had previously worked with him. Since the article was posted, research has uncovered more references about both Charles Russells in the pages of The Restitution newspaper. While the original article can stand as it is, this addenda is posted to provide the additional information, for any future researcher to know where to look.

My argument was that Eychaner would not have welcomed CTR on the same platform because his people by this time had come to view CTR with great suspicion. CTR’s early association with The Restitution when they circulated Object and a Manner for him was in the very dim and distant past.

Over 1894-1895 there are several references to CTR and his ministry in the pages of The Restitution. None of them are flattering.

Starting in its issue of September 26, 1894 the paper published a series of articles entitled Justification by Faith. They started life as lectures at the Indiana State conference. No author is given, but the Restitution was published from Plymouth, Indiana, and M. Joplin was corresponding editor at this time, so perhaps he was the author.

Episodes 10 and 11 (as found in the Restitution for December 5 and 12, 1894) spend most of their length attacking CTR.

Episode 10 starts with an account from three months before when (quote) A gentleman stood on the side walk in front of our place of worship one Sunday evening, and handed eight page tracts to those entering, entitled “Do You Know” (end of quote). This was Old Theology Quarterly No. 21. Whether the Church of God place of worship was specially targeted we do not know, but not surprisingly the writer was unimpressed. He took particular issue with page 5 of the tract, point 3:

DO YOU KNOW that our Lord Jesus paid the great price for all; to secure for all a FULL OPPORTUNITY to gain everlasting life by faith and obedience? – 1 Tim 2:6; Acts 3:22,23.

The writer’s immediate riposte was: (quote) Our answer to the author is: “No we know nothing of the kind; do you? If you do it would be kind of you to tell us how you know it.” The writer no doubt thinks he knows it, for he has appended two references to prove it: they are taken as proof by him and offered as such to us. (end of quote). The writer then discusses his own somewhat different slant on the verses CTR has quoted; with a reference to Millennial Dawn volume 1. A sample of the style comes over from phrases such as (quote) Evidently the Christ Mr. Russell expects to reign with, never died for him....we admit there is a fraud, and as between the Lord Jesus and Mr. Russell, we decide it is the latter; but our readers can take their choice (end of quote).

In Episode 11 of Justification by Faith, the writer had Millennial Dawn volume 2 in his sights. In Millennial Dawn volume 2: The Time is at Hand: Study 5 - The Manner of Lord’s Return and Appearing, CTR outlined his understanding of scripture on Jesus’ resurrection. In discussing what happened to Jesus’ fleshly body on resurrection, CTR theorized that maybe in the kingdom the literal body as preserved by God might even be shown to the world. (most editions: page 130). His main point was that Jesus did not take his literal body back on resurrection but “he was now a spirit being” (most editions: page 126).

 The Restitution writer came out with all guns blazing. Regrettably, the extant pages of the December 12, 1894 Restitution are somewhat difficult to decipher, but some selected salvos included (quote):  Had he not been blinded by his own invention he would have seen that the words he quotes to prove it, positively DISPROVE it...Evidently this popular author has not learned that Christ is the first fruits of the great harvest of dead ones...we squarely charge the author of Millennial Dawn with setting aside the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and representing his as deceiving the apostles by creating a body and clothing for that purpose. A man who would represent him in whose mouth was no guile, as capable of such abominable trickery in order to sustain his own, or some borrowed subterfuge, ought to be closed watched...All this folly grows out of want of faith in that great and glorious truth – justification by faith (end quotes).

Interestingly, it had to be admitted that CTR was now a “popular author”. His work was spreading. And as the previous issue indicated, one of his co-laborers even had the temerity to hand out tracts outside one of their churches.

These attacks were followed up in The Restitution for April 17, 1895. This issue contained a short article entitled The Millennial Dawn on page 2, which was a reprinted piece from Herald of the Coming One. This was a journal of the Evangelical Adventists. The EAs kept far more mainstream doctrines of Christendom than did other groups looking for Christ’s return, including the trinity, the natural immortality of the soul with either eternal bliss or everlasting punishment ahead (see Cornerstones of Faith by Charles H. Small 1898 page 398). Because they were seen as little different from mainstream Christendom they died out as a separate body in the early twentieth century. They were strange bedfellows for an Age to Come journal, but in 1895 they shared a common problem – his name was Charles Taze Russell.

The article is quite brief, and in the style of much of the day is one long paragraph. But this is the warning The Restitution reprinted:

A correspondent writes us asking if we have seen a work called "The Millennial Dawn," and if we have, he would be glad if we would give an opinion of it in these columns. We have

seen the work, and once or twice have warned our readers concerning it. We can only repeat what we have before said. The work is so craftily written that the unsuspecting are liable to be led astray by it. A deal of Scripture is quoted, and unless you are on your guard, you will swallow the poison with it. It is premillennial in its teachings, but at the same time it is rank Universalism. The author believes that all men will be finally saved. Entering a home, not long since, we found the three volumes comprising the work, and explained their character. The man of the house said that he was afraid of the result of such teachings. But a large number of the hooks are in circulation. Money is used freely to scatter works which deceive and lead away from God. O that the professed people of God would use their money as freely to scatter the truth. "The Millennial Dawn" is not worth the paper it is printed upon. Josh Billings said that "Rum was good in its place, and hell was the place for it." The book referred to is good in its place, but a blazing hot fire is the place for it. We hope that none of our readers will be deceived by its false teachings – Herald of the Coming One.

Just three weeks later (Restitution May 8, 1895 page 2) the paper began including a paragraph each week to advertize the forthcoming August Marshalltown conference. But looking back on the three articles cited above, there is no way that someone linked with such negative terms as false, fraud and folly could have been welcomed on that platform.

The Restitution had its skirmishes with Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Methodists, Campbellites, Christadelphians, etc, but – although I cannot give precise documentation - somehow CTR seemed a bigger headache by this time. As observed above, the warnings about him admitted that he was “a popular author”. It was noted that a large number of his books were in circulation. And those who believed his message were outside their churches handing out tracts. And while they had many doctrines in common, even a platform like conditional immortality was suspect. CTR’s belief that the resurrection of the “saints” was now instantaneous on death sounded too much like the old immortal soul concept to some.

And the negative feeling wasn’t to get any better. A nephew of Benjamin Wilson would publish a booklet attacking “Russellism” and then, as papers like The Brooklyn Eagle gave a negative tabloid slant to CTR’s activities, so The Restitution always seemed to find space to run the same stories.

This then was CTR – who did NOT appear with A. J. Eychaner at the 1895 conference – or at any time thereafter!

So what about the other Charles Russell? The original article pointed out when he first entered the picture as a working companion of Eychaner, and over 1894-95 there are several references to him. One key one that has come to light is from The Restitution October 17, 1894 page 3.

This issue carries the Iowa Conference report, which states (quote) State Evangelist Brother A. J. Eychaner and assistant evangelist, Brother C. W. Russel (sic), made a full report of the summer’s work (end of quote). On the same page, the full Iowa Evangelist’s Report for June 7 to October 4 is printed. Signed by Eychaner it covers the activities of Eychaner and Russell over these months, where they preached, how many sermons they delivered, how many they baptized, etc. and the exact numbers show AJE and CWR more or less level in effort and results.

So Charles W. Russell would obviously be expected to speak at the same convention as Eychaner. It was what he did at this period of history.

After the 1895 Marshalltown meeting C. W’s subsequently activities are not reported and he seems to disappear. However, seventeen years later, in 1912, a letter was printed from a Charles W. Russell who was now preaching in Colorado. (see The Restitution for November 19, 1912, page 2).

So these are our two Russells. But we are still left with the conundrum of why Eychaner wrote C. T. rather than C. W. in his diary. For the moment, I can only stick with my theory in the first article.

Eychaner and Russell 3 - Who was that Masked Man?

Diary of A J Eychaner, reproduced by kind permission of Jan Stilson 

First my apologies for the reference to The Lone Ranger. It gives away my age somewhat. But it’s a way of raising an important question on identity in a given situation.

At the head of this article is a most interesting historical document. It is two pages from the diary of A J Eychaner from 1895. As a later hand has indicated with comments and highlighter, Eychaner talks of C T Russell speaking at a conference at Marshalltown, held over August 15-25, 1895. This was the Church of God’s Iowa State Conference for that year. Andrew James Eychaner (1842-1936) was a long time preacher for the Church of God – a combination of congregations that used such names as Abrahamic Faith/One Faith/Age to Come. They were eventually united as the Church of God General Conference in 1921.

Charles Taze Russell (hereafter referred to as CTR) had connections with this group in the early days. Because they would often fellowship with Advent Christians on a local level (before the latter body became an official denomination) this has muddied the waters somewhat about the little fellowship CTR first met with at Quincy Hall in Allegheny. The Church of God’s main paper, The Restitution, advertised Barbour’s Three Worlds book, and CTR’s first independent work, Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, was given away with this paper in 1877. These connections are discussed at length in Separate Identity Volume 1, and also past articles on this blog such as Charles Taze Russell and the Restitution, and 1874-75 Allegheny-Pittsburgh – Adventist or Age to Come?

It would appear from the diary above that, although ZWT was well-established by 1895 and the Watch Tower movement was achieving its “separate identity”, CTR still appeared on a Church of God platform. This matter was discussed on the closed blog about four years ago, when the accuracy of the diary entries was questioned. (For any who are gluttons for punishment and want all the references and do not have access to the closed blog, by all means feel free to contact me back-channel).

But reviewing the basics of the argument, there appeared to be conflicting evidence for whether it really was our Charles Russell who appeared on the same platform as A J Eychaner.

There were two main reasons for raising questions.

First, when The Restitution advertised the conference, it billed a C W Russell as the supporting speaker, and he too was a Charles. Charles W Russell was a regular assistant to Eychaner at this time. He moved to Iowa from Chicago and received his teaching certificate in July 1894. Over the next year, his name was regularly linked with Eychaner’s in tent work. Years later, in 1912 he was still preaching for the Church of God.

So it would be logical for C W Russell to appear at the Marshalltown conference. People would be expecting him, not CTR. Hence he is clearly billed in The Restitution for August 7, 1895, which gives the complete conference program with speakers.

Second, relations between our CTR and the Church of God had soured considerably by this time. CTR’s writings had attracted severe criticism as Restitution readers were warned about him. Some of the choice epithets he’d already garnered by this time included  “blinded by his own invention,” “abominable trickery,” “want of faith,” “lead away from God,” “deceive,”“false prophet,” “fraud,” “folly” and “poison.” The fact that ZWT adherents had targeted Church of God believers with tract work (see The Restitution for December 5, 1894 for example) left the latter singularly unimpressed. Which at least raises the question - would CTR really have been invited to share a Church of God platform for over a week? And had he done so, would he really (as the diary relates) have accepted a dollar for expenses?

Having raised these questions, I believe that had CTR been invited, he would have accepted. He was keen to share his beliefs wherever he could. He would get involved in well-publicized debates with clergy of the day – although a debate with two clearly defined opposing viewpoints was a little different to being invited as a guest speaker. But with strong attacks on his theology in The Restitution, would such an invitation still be given at this late date? And assuming it had been, how would that be received when news got out? Restitution readers were more than capable of complaining when anything less than the truth as they saw it was preached to them. But in extant copies of the paper, there is silence.

And yet one cannot escape the fact that the diary clearly states it was C T Russell who attended and spoke. And a diary has to be a primary source – of more probative value than a newspaper.

When I wrote on this subject four years ago I was – I admit – a tad dogmatic. When deciding to re-use this material for a new article, I decided it was more reasonable to now leave the question open. So really, this article was to be a cautionary tale on how historians are often faced with conflicting information. It still is. We don’t have literal observers to talk to. And even if we had, you would probably still have to deal with conflicting accounts given in all honesty by eyewitnesses. So a researcher has to make a judgment. And however much one might argue as above, you cannot get away from it – Andrew Eychaner sat down in the closing decade of the 19^th century, dipped his pen in the ink, and wrote down C T Russell. Three times. The diary is a primary source.

And that would have been how the article ended.

BUT THEN...

But then quite remarkably, after nearly 120 years, in a moment of serendipity, further evidence has come to light. Eychaner wrote a report on what he had accomplished in the year 1895-96. It may even have been intended for publication in The Restitution – but sadly that file is incomplete. But his original handwritten report has survived. No doubt he used his personal diary notes as source material at some points. And below is reproduced the relevant page from this report in Andrew Eychaner’s own hand.

Report of A J Eychaner, used courtesy of Jan Stilson from material donated by Lois Cline, great niece of A J Eychaner

A transcript reads:

As your evangelist for the past year I submit to you the following report of work done, money received and amounts paid out in necessary expenses.

From Aug 15 to 25 I was with you in the conference at Marshalltown. I came on the 14^th and brother Prinner arrived on the 15^th. We found much to do in order that the conference might have a pleasant meeting. There was a lot to secure, water to arrange for with the city and ground to clean, tents to set up, and other necessary things to do. On Friday Aug 16 Brethren began to arrive and the meeting began at 8 o’cl. by brother C W Russell preaching the introductory sermon. During the meeting I helped along as I could in preaching 5 sermons and taking part in social meetings, Bible readings and business meetings. I think it was the best time we...    (last line indistinct)

So no matter what he wrote in his diary, when it came to an official report, we are back with C W Russell.

A J Eychaner’s account paints an entertaining and rather touching picture of those days. He didn’t just preach, he organised water, he put up tents, he dealt with the wind and the rain, he coped with local thieves who stole from his tent, and straight after the conference in question he mentions C W Russell again:

On Thurs Sep 5 I went to Lanark to assist in the conference of the State of Illinois, and again left C.W. Russell in charge of the tent. That eve there came up a severe storm and altho Bro Russell did all he could yet the wind damaged the tent considerable. I spoke six times at Lanark and preached one funeral discourse at Union church, returning to Laurens (?) and the tent Mond Sep 7, after an absence of only 4 days. Spoke on the life eternal through Jesus. That night thieves entered my tent and stole two chairs.

Later the conference made provision to fund this same Brother Russell for evangelistic services for the next six months.

So what do we have here? Three different sources and a conflict of information.

To review:

 First, from The Restitution for August 7, 1895, page 2. This was the advertisement to get readers to attend. It was obviously the same conference that Eychaner described in his diary, even though there were some changes between the planning and the reality. (It appears that some billed speakers didn’t show, and those who were there had to fill in for them). Note that the first day of sermons was to be Friday August 16^th, and C W Russell was billed to give a sermon.

However, when Eychaner wrote his diary, it now became C T Russell giving the sermon on Friday, August 16^th.

But later when he wrote up his full official report, it reverted to C W Russell giving the opening sermon on Friday, August 16^th.

CWR to CTR and then back to CWR again. What explanation can there be for this discrepancy?

I can only think of two possibilities. The first is deliberate misdirection. CWR was advertised, but CTR switched places with him. Then A J Eychaner put in his official report that it was CWR. And hoped that no-one would blow the whistle on the substitution.

Personally, I would find that hard to believe, if for no other reason that Eychaner was an honorable man. He might have been a bit of maverick at times, but that very point means that if he’d wanted to do something controversial, he would have stuck to his guns. He wouldn’t have falsified records to cover it up.

The other possibility is what we might call, for want of a better expression, a Freudian slip. The name of CTR wasn’t foreign to Eychaner – he had previously written about him in The Restitution.

We have all made such slips. Where I live there is someone who we shall call Debbie Richards. A relative of mine must have been influenced by Singing in the Rain, because the first time he met her he called her Debbie Reynolds. And for the last dozen years of his life, he couldn’t shake this – his synapses insisted that she was Debbie Reynolds – I mean Richards – and that was it. Had he written a diary, I am sure the error would have been there.

An historian who has examined the original diary in the archives of Atlanta Bible College has commented that the ink seems to indicate that it probably wasn’t a diary written day by day, but rather this whole page was likely written out in one go – maybe from other notes. So one slip writing CTR could easily be repeated on the same page.

If readers can suggest further possibilities, then please do so in the comment trail.

So in conclusion - does it really matter? We know there were links between CTR and the Age to Come movement in the early days. We know they became strained as CTR’s theology developed and ultimately were broken. The Restitution even promoted a book by W H Wilson (nephew of Benjamin) entitled Cunningly Devised Fables of Russellism.

It is just a matter of timing.

Perhaps the main point is the original intent of this article – which is that you cannot even automatically rely on a diary. Normally it would have trumped a current newspaper account hands down. But some readers may feel that a carefully thought-out report in the same hand can then trump a diary. We are all human, we all make mistakes. We don’t expect people to pore over our words and rough notes as if they were Holy Writ over a century later. 

Caveat lector – let the reader beware.

Personal comments by Jan Stilson, Church of God historian and author – written in March 2015

The question of whether or not C.T. Russell was a guest preacher at the Iowa Church of God Conference in August, 1895, seems to have been settled once and for all when papers furnished to me, a Church of God historian and author (J. Turner Stilson. Biographical Encyclopedia: Chronicling the History of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith ISBN 0-615-46561-6), finally came to light.

An elderly local member, a great niece of A.J. Eychaner, had donated a box of historic papers prior to her death in 2014. With my husband’s illness and other pressing matters, I had set them aside for later review. As the question of Elder Eychaner’s mysterious diary entries re-emerged, I sat down one day to review the issue. Something had fallen out of a file folder next to the chair. In reaching for it I realized it was a hand written report of Eychaner to the Iowa Church of God Conference amazingly dated 1895-96. In these pages Eychaner several times had clearly written the name of Bro. C.W. Russell (of Chicago) who had been hired as evangelist for 6 mos.

How Eychaner managed to write “C.T. Russell” in his diary and “C.W. Russell” in his report, remains a mystery. Perhaps we can chalk it up to a lapse of memory, a “senior moment”, or some other lapse on Eychaner’s part. Jerome has said that discovery of the conclusive evidence at this particular time was “serendipity”, but perhaps it was more than that. Perhaps the Lord himself wanted this question settled, and made it so. The matter of unusual or conflicting facts is a major problem for historians working from scant or scattered documents. Even editors in The Restitution and The Restitution Herald, the Church of God’s succeeding title, could not agree on spelling of pastor’s and reader’s names from issue to issue. One might see “Uncle John Foor” in one issue and “Foore” in the next. And if John Foore named his son John Foore, well, the problems of determining which generation was being discussed were often serious. So, such an error on Eychaner’s part can perhaps be forgiven by historians. It certainly has made for an interesting dialogue. Thank you to all scholars for pursuing the matter. – Jan Stilson, Oregon, IL.