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.

Where Oh Where?

From World’s Hope notices throughout 1890 (volume 8)

Many rare historical materials have not survived because they were in newspaper format and so viewed more as ephemera at the time of publication. A classic example of this is George Storrs’ Bible Examiner for 1871-73. The two years it was a weekly paper do not appear to have survived – which is a great pity since those years might have yielded useful historical information. Once Storrs’ paper became a monthly magazine in 1873 and bound volumes were offered to the public, then it survived.

So where oh where have John Paton’s World’s Hope magazines gone? Above are advertisements found in issues throughout 1890 (volume 8) offering bound volumes to whoever would buy them for all but the first year (which we know has survived).

But whatever happened to the other volumes listed above? Have they all failed to survive? Is there anyone out there who can shed light on any further sources other than the Detroit library system that likely has volumes 1-2, and the Almont library system and Aurora University library that have some later issues?  Many early associates of ZWT were attracted to Paton’s theology and wrote letters to his magazine. The earlier years should therefore be a useful historical source – if they still exist.

The Mystery of Herman Heinfetter

This article may appear a detour from the early days of Charles Taze Russell, although the history relates to concurrent events in Britain during that era. But it gives details about a work that could almost be viewed as a forerunner of the New World Translation. Herman Heinfetter produced more than one Bible translation in the mid-19^th century, with a choice of words that will sound familiar to many blog readers. And it is now known that he had an interest in American authors such as George Storrs.

For example, in his booklet The Revealed History of Man (published in 1854) Heinfetter wrote: “I am indebted to the Reverend George Storrs of Philadelphia for perceiving that Almighty God has revealed to man that there is an Eternal Death, and for many of the arguments I have employed in the foregoing statement of the subject, his little work, An Enquiry – Are the Wicked Immortal? is well worthy of being read.”

The original article below was published in the quarterly journal of the International Society of Bible Collectors in 1995, and details the research methods that had to be used in the pre-internet age. It seems like a long time ago. The author now runs this blog.

One of the more mysterious entries in DMH (Darlow and Moule's 'Historical Catalogue of Printed Bibles' revised Herbert 1968) is that for Herman Heinfetter.  DMH 1957 states "In ULC (University Library of Cambridge) the name is treated as a pseudonym for F. Parker of whom nothing is known."  This article is an attempt to unravel the mystery.

Heinfetter or Parker actually produced two different New Testament translations.  Over 23 years (1842-1864) they ran to six editions and appeared in a variety of formats from pocket size to large octavo presentation volumes.  Outside the DMH remit he was also an indefatigable tract writer for over 40 years.  He produced what is probably the first real Sacred Name New Testament as we shall see.

HIS BACKGROUND

Frederick Parker, to give him his full title, was born in South Lambeth, Surrey, England in 1804.  He was a prosperous businessman.  He died aged 84 on 10 February 1888 in Highgate, London, survived by five children.  His scholastic background (or lack of it) is not known, but late in life he made references to past meetings with scholars, and being a member of the Anglo-Biblical Institute.  Like many other sincere people he had a burning desire to right the wrongs in English Bible translation as he saw it.  In his case he also had a convenient fortune to spend on the project.  He once calculated that he was spending eight hundred pounds each year on his Biblical work, which in the 1850s was a sizeable amount. No one ever seemed to buy Fred's Bibles!  They were all privately printed and sent as unsolicited gifts to (as he put it) "relatives and acquaintances - it may be in number 50 - trusting that one might escape being cast into the fire and in fitting time be the means of unfolding the truth to the Christian world".

The low print runs explain their scarcity for Bible collectors today.  Some were sent or donated later to libraries, so today the British Library holds 18 volumes, UCL holds 7, and there are at least 8 volumes in Dr. Williams' Nonconformist Library in London.

So why the mystery?  Why did Frederick Parker hide behind the pseudonym Herman Heinfetter?  In 1885 he gave the answer.  In a final tract, an attack on the newly published Revised Version, he now used his own name and explained:  'As long as I was in business, I judged it better to publish under the assumed name of Herman Heinfetter, and the address of my printer; I judged a knowledge of my being in business would impair my statements in scholastic estimation; and that by a knowledge of my being engaged in publishing, my transactions in business would be imputed not to have received sufficient attention."

Frederick still neglected at this late stage to mention what his actual business had been, but it was probably unique for a Bible translator.  Britain has conducted a detailed census every ten years (apart from wartime) and when the census enumerator called on Fred on 30 March 1851 he gave his occupation as - Animal Charcoal Manufacturer...  Basically, Fred would burn the remains of animals, once the glue and gelatine factories had finished with them, to produce a special grade of charcoal.  Animal charcoal was used commercially in the production of deodorants, artists' materials, and also filters to decolourise sugar.  Not that he necessarily stoked the fires himself.  The Trade Directories of the day had a well-defined class system and Fred was listed as 'Gentry' and he died 'A Gentleman'.  In spite of his publishing he still left a sizeable fortune along with property to his heirs.

It does however present an incongruous picture.  One can perhaps understand why Fred chose to keep quiet about it in the academic world.

HIS TRANSLATION

Parker's original work was issued in parts, starting with Romans in 1842.  By 1857 the complete New Testament was being advertised in nine volumes, ranging from the 2nd to 4th editions.  A comparison of the 1st, 3rd and 6th editions of Luke in ULC show that each edition underwent considerable revision.

These small pale blue volumes were published by Cradock and Co., London.  They each contain not one but two translations, what Parker called 'A Literal Translation' and then 'An English Version'.  The volume of Matthew (1853) for example carries the full title:  'A Literal Translation of the Gospel of Matthew on Definite Rules of Translation and an English Version of the Same'. The introduction indicates that Parker used the Griesbach recension of the Vatican manuscript as his main text.

The Literal Translation reads very much like an interlinear, and is replete with footnotes.  Parker assumed that his readers would have convenient access to all his pamphlets - so referred to them at every possible opportunity. Then at the end of each volume is the 'English Version', without notes, which is somewhat easier to read.

In the 1860s the translations were issued separately and complete in large quarto volumes, now published by Evan Evans, London.  In 1864 came the 6th and final editions.  'The Literal Translation of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the Text of Vatican Manuscript' (with notes) retailed for a guinea (21 shillings) - assuming that any were sold commercially.  "The English Version" was ten shillings and six pence (with a smaller version for five shillings) although the heading on extant copies 'With the Author's Respectful Compliments' suggests another free distribution.  There was also a third version entitled 'A Collation of an English Version of the New Testament...with the Authorised English Version.’  Using different typefaces this provided an interlinear comparison of Parker's English Version with the Authorised (King James) Version.  These last volumes of 1864 carried a dedication to the Members of the Anglo-Biblical Institute "in grateful remembrance of their defense of Biblical criticism."

In 1865 he made a start on the Old Testament, using the Vatican manuscript's Septuagint as the basis, but only Genesis was to appear.

One of the most distinctive features of Parker's translations is his use of the name Jehovah for God in the New Testament.  Earlier NT translations by Harwood, Newcome, Macrae, Lingard, et al. had used Jehovah on occasions where the sense might be clarified in OT quotations.  The usual example is Matthew 22 v.44 "The Lord said to my Lord" a quotation from Psalm 110 v.1 where in Hebrew the first 'Lord' is plainly the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH).

Parker was most concerned about the difficulties created, as he saw it, by using 'Lord' for both Father and Son in translation.  Initially he had a different solution.  In a preface dated July 1st 1849 (but used for several years thereafter) he remarked:  'As I do not see the possibility of distinguishing in English between the appellation 'Lord' when used in relation to God and when used in relation to Christ, in any way consistent with our usage in relation to Sense and Sound, I have substituted in my versions for 'Lord', used in relation to God, the appellation 'God', as ensuring a just apprehension of the sense.'

He carefully restricted this substitution in both his translations to OT quotations that used YHWH, although most surprisingly his 1853 edition of Matthew still renders Matthew 22 v.44 as "The Lord said to my Lord" - one of the very few verses in his Literal Translation to lack a footnote!

By the time the one volume editions appeared in the 1860s he had made the decision to use Jehovah extensively to cover this problem. However, he was still very careful to restrict the substitution to OT quotations where YHWH originally occurred.  The name Jehovah was now used about 140 times in his New Testaments.

HIS THEOLOGY

Between 1841-1885 Parker issued numerous booklets and tracts to accompany his translations.  Many dwell at length on the Greek language, and his theories on grammar, punctuation and word order.  Doctrinally he advocated that Good Friday should be Thursday; that while the Biblical Sabbath was Saturday, every day was really a Sabbath; he attacked transubstantiation; opposed the taking of oaths; criticised the Revised Version for confusing the Lord God with the Lord Jesus; and argued that worship directed to the Son meant respect, while absolute worship only went to God the Creator.

It can be seen from the above that in common with Unitarians, Christadelphians, and many Adventist and Church of God groups of the day, Parker could not accept the doctrine of the trinity.  This is reflected in his translation, and is nowhere demonstrated better than his rendering of the final clause in John 1 v.1.  The 1851 English Version reads, "the word became a God".  By 1864 this had evolved into, "the command had relation to a God".  But the inference is clear.

This controversial rendering 'a god' has a long history, going back at least to Edward Harwood's 'Liberal Translation' of 1768 ("and was himself a divine person").  In the 19th century it had been used in the Unitarian Improved Version NT of 1808 (based on Newcome) and was also to be used in the interlinear of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott.

In several respects, the translations by Frederick Parker and Benjamin Wilson echo each other.  Both used the Vatican manuscript as their standard text.  Both started life as part works, and became definitive one volume editions in the 1860s - Parker in Britain and Wilson in America.  Both are non-Trinitarian in concept.  Both use Jehovah in the NT, although Parker's use vastly outstrips that of Wilson.  One can speculate whether there was any link between the two men, or did they travel down similar roads independently?  It may simply be a familiarity with the 1808 Improved Version which as well as 'a god' also uses Jehovah on occasion.  And who travelled this particular road first?  Likely it was Parker who was an older man, and whose translation work began much earlier.

HIS PLACE

So at the end of the day where did Fred Parker belong?  Although certain of his ideas could be found in established groups of the day, Fred in fact did not belong.  Fred was completely on his own!

His final series of tracts, issued from 1883-1885 poignantly illustrate this.  They were sent out in large numbers to all the dissenting ministers, theological colleges and groups he could think of.  Only one recipient responded and that was by sending it straight back marked 'Inconsequent Rubbish!'  Now in his 80s, Fred struggled with the postmark to comment darkly that it must have come back from a member of the Upper House of the Convocation of York!  In his very last tract he lamented:  'Here on the 30th June 1885 I stand alone, unaided by one clergyman, or one dissenting minister, or one brother, and feel that there is no one that will do aught, but try to stop my voice.  This nature soon will do.  At 81 years of age we aught to reckon time by hours, and I wished, ere I was called hence, to make one more effort, one that will sound through the length and breadth of England and America as long as time endures.  For this end did I make this record, and do leave it to give utterance for me, when my bodily utterance shall cease'.

His Last Will and Testament made provision for the continued copyright of his writings with the rather forlorn hope that one day there would be an awakening of interest.  But copies of his work in the major libraries languished in the stacks.  Some of those sent as gifts to Unitarian ministers eventually found their way into Dr. Williams' Library, London.

And then, one hundred years on, an aspect of his work was rediscovered. The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, produced by Jehovah's Witnesses in 1950, also used Jehovah in OT quotations.  To show they were not alone in this practice, the 1984 Reference Edition of this translation contained a numbered list of 'J' references, where other translations also included the Tetragrammaton in some form in the NT. Most of these other translations were Hebrew versions of the NT using YHWH, but there, as reference J-24 is Herman Heinfetter.

Following on from this, in 1988 the witnesses produced a two volume encyclopedia called Insight on the Scriptures.  The main article 'Jehovah' in volume 2, page 11, has a facsimile display of early translations where Jehovah (or similar) is used in the NT.  The sole English version represented is Mark 12 v.29,30 by Herman Heinfetter, taken from his 1863 Literal Translation (likely from a 5th edition in Dr. Williams' Library).  The extract reads: "The Jesus answered him, verily first it exists, here, O Israel, Jehovah our God, one Jehovah he exists, and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength".

Whatever our own views may be on Frederick Parker's theology, one can imagine how grateful he would be to know that the mysterious Herman Heinfetter, Victorian Bible translator, had not been entirely forgotten.

ON THE TRAIL OF HERMAN HEINFETTER

(written in 1995)

The starting point was Heinfetter's 1885 tract NON-ATTAINMENTS OF THE REVISED VERSIONS OF 1885 OF THE BIBLE, published under his real name, F. Parker.  A copy is in the Pusey Library, Keble College, Oxford. Nearly all direct quotations from Parker in the above article are taken from this tract.  Crucially the tract contains his real name and address.

The address led to the Census Returns in Portugal Street, London.  Here Parker's age, place of birth, profession and family details are recorded.  These were supported by the Trade Directories in the Guildhall Library, London.  Starting at 1885, a quick search in Somerset House produced his Last Will and Testament which gave additional information.  The total cost of the above research was a pleasant afternoon one vacation and one dollar for a copy of his will.  As to his religious background I am grateful to correspondents at Manchester College (Unitarian) for disproving any official connection with that body.  As his 1885 tract shows, Parker was on his own. Thanks are also due to the Bible Society Library for making materials available.

The only discordant note came surprisingly from Dr. Williams' Library.  Whilst generously supplying the required information, one official wrote about my quest: "I have the suspicion that those with nothing else to do either produce new translations of the Bible or write about those who did".  Obviously not a member of the International Society of Bible Collectors!

Wherefore art thou Benjamin?

Does anyone out there have any information from Ancestry or a similar site about Benjamin Land?

As this time of writing, I cannot put my hand on any primary documentation, but we know that CTR’s sister, Margaret married Benjamin F Land in the mid-1870s. Margaret was born in 1855, so would have been around 20 years old at the time of the marriage. Their first child, Ada, was reportedly born in 1876. Ada was followed by Alice (b.1878), Joseph (b.1880) and May F (Thelma) (b.1886).

Alice married Fred Williamson, and May (Thelma) married Carl Kendall. Both couples allegedly worked at Bethel at one point.

Benjamin Land was born in Penn. (as were his parents) around 1849, and was apparently a cabinet maker. He and his family later lived in Tampa, Florida.

The reason for the query is an interesting note in George Storrs’ Bible Examiner for June 1874, page 288. Storrs had just returned from a two week visit to Pittsburgh in early May where he first met Joseph Lytel Russell. (Storrs would subsequently publish letters from Joseph L and other Allegheny and Pittsburgh residents, like William Conley and George Clowes).

Hot on the heels of his return, Storrs obviously had requests for literature, and so on the aforementioned page 288, he published this note:

Parcels sent to May 25 – Wm H Conley (2 parcels), G D Clowes Sen., B F Land, J L Russell and Son (by Express). 

Conley, Clowes and Russell were all contacts from that recent visit. But there in the middle we see that a parcel was also sent to B F Land. Is it a stretch of the imagination that he also was an Allegheny or Pittsburgh resident at this time? And that he was to marry CTR’s sister? And that maybe their meeting was in connection with the One Faith meetings and activities of that era?

It’s just a footnote of potential human interest.