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.