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.