Richard Heber Newton

by Jerome

Photograph from the Fitchburg Sentinel, Mass, for April 22, 1891

What links the Scopes monkey trial of 1925, this blog’s resident bad boy, Albert Royal Delmont Jones of the ill-fated Day Star, and Charles Taze Russell of Zion’s Watch Tower? The answer is Richard Heber Newton.

Your first reaction may be – who?                                       

To give a flavor of the man, check out first this newspaper item from the Aurora Daily Express for November 22, 1892. (The same story was also published in The Times, Trenton, N.J. November 19, 1892, and the Lincoln Evening News, Nebraska, November 25, 1892, and no doubt other papers of the day).

The clipping shows that Newton was widely known in his day. His “misfortunes” included being charged with heresy. In truth, he was to be charged with heresy on three separate occasions during his career, in 1883, 1884 and 1891, but as a sign of liberalizing theology the matter was always fudged so that he kept his position. The newspaper above, which relates to the 1891 episode, noted that Newton was “exonerated”, although dryly commented that “not proven” might be more accurate.

More than a decade after Newton’s death America was to be fascinated by what was popularly called the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. A substitute high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating the Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school in Tennessee. Although the fundamentalists won the skirmish of the day and Scopes was found guilty, his conviction was overturned on a technicality. Long-term the fundamentalists lost ground as far as future legislation was concerned, although the Butler Act actually stayed on the books until 1967.

But in covering the case, most journalists highlighted past cases where an attack on a literal interpretation of the Bible had put people in the dock, including clergymen like Dr Richard Heber Newton. Several newspapers mentioned Newton being charged back in the 1890s with “broad churchmanship” - in other words heresy. The cutting below comes from the Daily Northwestern (Oshkosh, Wisconsin) for July 10, 1925:

The same story appeared in other papers such as the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, July 9, 1925, and the Lima News, Ohio, July 10, 1925. According to the small print, Newton had demanded a formal trial, but when this demand was met, the plaintiffs failed to appear. And Newton was viewed as a champion of liberal theology as opposed to literalists and fundamentalists.

So who was this man, and what was his connection with “truth history”?

Richard Heber Newton (1840-1914) was a prominent American Episcopalian clergyman and writer. From 1869 to 1902 he was rector of All Souls' Protestant Episcopal Church in New York City. He was a leader in the Social Gospel movement and as evidenced above, a firm supporter of Higher Criticism of the Bible. He came to prominence and notoriety in the early 1880s with a series of sermons later published in book form (copyright 1883) entitled “The Right and Wrong Uses of the Bible”. This work clearly nails his colors to the wall.

While commending the Bible as literature that could work on the emotions, Newton’s stance on inerrancy and inspiration was clear. His premise, bluntly and vigorously expressed, was that (in his own words):

It is wrong to accept its utterances indiscriminately as the words of God.

It is wrong to accept everything recorded therein as necessarily true.

It is wrong to consult it...for the determining of our judgements and the decision of our actions.

It is wrong to go to it for divination of the future.

And it is wrong to manufacture out of it any one uniform system of theology.

Preaching this material from the pulpit and publishing it for the masses outside of his own church drew strong criticism in certain quarters – hence the repeated charges of heresy and attendant newspaper notoriety.

These five key points of Newton’ theology would all be at obvious odds with the message found in CTR’s Zion’s Watch Tower of the day. But in the 1880s they would be manna from heaven for Albert Royal Delmont Jones.

 In the 1880s, after already having fended off two charges of heresy, Newton would write extensively (and sometimes exclusively) for Jones’ Day Star Paper.

The August 19, 1886 issue lists around 60 of Newton’s sermons being available in the Day Star pages. And some were exclusive to editor Jones at this point. For example: 

A similar advertisement for the same pamphlet showed that it was given away as a free gift to all new Day Star subscribers:

This clearly shows that in 1886 the most prominent theological voice in Albert Royal Delmont Jones’ Day Star was that of Richard Heber Newton.

Whether Charles Taze Russell ever knew of Newton’s connection with Jones is not known, but Newton was sufficiently famous (or infamous) to make him a specific target in Zion’s Watch Tower. ZWT for July 1, 1892, carried a lengthy article (including a cartoon) that took up 10 of the magazine’s 16 pages. (See reprints pages 1417-1420).

CTR started by laying into Protestant clergy in general who preached higher criticism, describing them as “men honoured with titles such as neither our Lord not any of his apostles ever owned...who receive salaries such as no apostle ever received...(and) who are recognized as among the best educated in all things pertaining to worldly wisdom...but which prefers to arraign that revelation before an inferior court of fallible human philosophers and incompetent judges who vainly overrate their own knowledge and wisdom.”

He continued, “What wonder that the pews are also sceptical... They are handing stones and serpents to those who look to them for food... As for the average nominal Christian...he is just ready to swallow these suggestions of unbelief.” The Towers had warned about these developments from the very early issues.

Having lambasted the clergy in general, CTR next turned his attention to the Rev. R. Heber Newton in the particular, mentioning him by name three times. After one lengthy quote from Newton, CTR derided his theology: (capitalization mine):

“Here is a REPUDIATION of all that Christ taught on the subject of the “things written” which “must be fulfilled,” a REPUDIATION of all his quotations from the Law and the Prophets; a REPUDIATION of his repeated statements of God’s choice of...the seed of Abraham as heirs of the promises that of these should come the predicted Messiah; (and) a REPUDIATION of his statement of the necessity of his death.”

The last point hit at the heart of CTR’s theology. His attack on Newton’s preaching continued: “But whilst showing Christ to have been a wonderful Jew, and the great exemplar for both Jews and Gentiles, he (Newton) utterly REPUDIATES him as a Savior in the sense that the Master taught – that he “gave his life a ransom for many” – “to save (recover) that which was lost.”

CTR applied Matthew 7:22 to Newton – “those who say Lord, Lord, yet follow not his teachings...It is the duty of every true disciple to rebuke them; for the outward opponents do far less harm than those who wear the Master’s name whilst denying his doctrine.”

CTR concluded his lengthy attack on Newton with the words:

“As a further element of this discussion the reader is referred to Chapters ii, iii, and x. of MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. 1. And thus we rest our argument for the present; urging all who have “laid hold upon the hope set before us in the gospel” to hold fast the confidence of their rejoicings firm unto the end – to hold fast to the Book, And how much more easy it is and will be for those who have learned the real plan of God and seen its beauty to stand firm upon the Bible than for others. To many, alas! It is a jumbled mass of doctrinal contradictions, but to us it is the foundation of a clear, definite, grand plan of the ages. So grandly clear and symmetrical is the wonderful plan that all who see it are convinced that only God could have been its author, and that the book whose teachings it harmonizes must indeed be God’s revelation.”

Albert D Jones’ reliance on Newton to fill his Day Star pages in the 1880s, and CTR’s lengthy and specific attack on Newton’s theology in the early 1890s, shows the gulf that now existed between CTR and his former co-worker. There were a number of people over the years who parted company with CTR and founded their own journals – Paton, Adams, von Zech, Henninges – but at least they retained a more or less fundamentalist approach to scripture, and could have a framework within which to debate their own proof texts. The same was true with other religious journals, One Faith, Adventist, and the like.

But the infidel Jones had gone one step further. In ZWT for May 1890 CTR reviewed the history of the developing “truth movement” in a lengthy article entitled Harvest Gatherings and Siftings. Concerning Jones’ paper (Zion’s) Day Star, he wrote that “within one year it had repudiated Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and within another year it had gone boldly into infidelity and totally repudiated all the rest of the Bible as well as those portions which teach the fall in Adam and the ransom therefrom in Christ.” He also noted that of that date (1890) the Day Star was “now for some years discontinued”. The whole article was reprinted with some amendments in the special 1894 issue of ZWT entitled A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings.

The dates (“one year” then “another year”) line up perfectly with the first publication of Newton’s credo “The Right and Wrong Uses of the Bible”. To then allow Newton his weekly pulpit in the Day Star pages would make perfect sense to Albert D, but illustrates how just far (by CTR’s terms of reference) he had gone beyond the pale.

Research help ...

We need someone to extract from the Russell v. Russell material all comments about their writing partnership.

Tell your friends

Sales of Separate Identity are declining. We fund our (very expensive) research from sales of our books. Please recommend them to your friends.

All Time Visits

... Over 122,000. I wish it were more.

Day Dawn

We are forced to sell our first edition Day Dawn. Probably not many who read this blog can afford it. We want $4200.00 US dollars. Contact me if you're interested.

Research Needs

Our outline calls for a chapter on the writing of Plan of the Ages. Mrs. Russell claimed to have written part of it. We believe her claim is somewhat exaggerated. We are open to observations and new research. Anyone?

We found this on ebay

We can't afford to buy the original, but here are the photos:

 

Reviews

Some of you reviewed Separate Identity on google books. Google in their puzzling wisdom took that copy of our book down and put up a new version. The nice reviews are gone. Would you please go back to google books and leave a review?

Update

You won't hear much from us through the summer. Between us we've agreed to write three specialty textbooks that must be ready by end of August. They don't require original research, but they are still labor intensive.

We are open to articles by others. If you want to submit an article relevant to Watch Tower history, email it to me at rm de vienne @ yahoo.com. It must be footnoted. It must be verifiable, solid history. If it isn't, it won't see publication here. Bad writing wont see publication either. But ... if you want to try your hand at it, feel free. I prefer original research and an article with some depth.

A D Jones' theology in his own words

From Zion’s Day Star for January 1884

In fact, we were never so thoroughly convinced as now, that the Four Gospels of the New Testament have comparatively no inspiration about them! Very many of the New Testament teachings do not correspond with those of the Old, but do, on the other hand, flatly contradict them! Peter draws a clear-cut line between Jesus as the man and his after exalted state as Lord and Christ. Note this well, for it is a death blow to the Miraculous Conception theory!

We question the inspiration of the Four Gospels, and we challenge those who teach such a theory to harmonize it with Daniel’s prophecy! To claim that Peter, James and John were inspired, is simply child’s talk! Let us look well to what we pin our faith; or upon what we build an argument; and especially when using statements found in either of the four Gospels or Acts of the Apostles!

You ask, then, what is our opinion of him? (Jesus). We answer, it is that he was a man.

By January 1884 there was a doctrinal gulf between CTR and Barbour and CTR and Paton. But in comparison the theological chasm between CTR and Jones had now reached Grand Canyon proportions.

Addenda

I have been asked if I have a copy of the January 1884 Zion’s Day Star which is quoted above. Alas, no. The only two copies of this paper that I know to be in circulation are December 25, 1884 (by which time it was simply the Day Star) and August 19, 1886. There is a bound volume covering most if not all of 1886 in the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. But it is fragile and oversize, and the library has resolutely decided it can only be copied through one process – and that in about 3-4 years time. Perhaps.

So where does the January 1884 quote come from? It comes from an article in the Church of God/Age to Come weekly paper called The Restititution for July 27, 1887, page 3.

A lengthy sermon by Dr L C Thomas is reprinted as given at Wyoming, Delaware, and Thomas quotes as above from the January 1884 Day Star. The quote is probably a series of extracts that Thomas had put together as one to give the flavour of Jones’ theology. Thomas was NOT impressed, and specifically attacked the editor of the Day Star for being a Josephite. A Josephite is someone who denies the concept of miraculous conception for Jesus, and who therefore believes Joseph to be his natural father. Many Age to Come readers of The Restitution were Socinian in outlook (i.e. they disbelieved in a literal pre-existance for Jesus). Josephites would argue that they were simply taking the concept one step further.

CTR of course had a great deal to say about how he viewed Jones’ changing theology in both early ZWTs, as well as a summary in Harvest Siftings.

Things continue to fall into our lap ...

Short Update

We're still researching W. H. Conley and up-dating our chapter in progress. Be patient. Lots of new stuff. It will take time to present it accurately.

Selling Shirts

It is known that A D Jones once worked in one of CTR’s stores. He also branched out into the shirt store business on his own account.

Below is an advertisement from the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette for November 6, 1883. The firm of Jones and Littell is operating from Pittsburgh, but they have several branches. One of these branches is at 335, Fourth Avenue, New York.

As shown below, this was the address of Jones’ (Zions) Day Star.

In the December 25^th 1884 issue of Day Star there are several advertisements under Furnishing Goods. Below are three. The one in the middle is J M Littell (billed in the ad as the successor to Jones and Littell of Pittsburgh) with its surviving Pittsburgh address. Albert D Jones and James Littell appear to have parted business company by this time, although Jones’ paper still carried advertising for Littell’s solo venture. But topping and tailing the Littell advertisement are advertisements for another company. Do you want a Wamsutta Muslin Night Shirt? Or how about White Dress Shirts? The American Shirt Store can assist you. And the address of the American Shirt Store? Yes - 335, Fourth Avenue, New York.

There were several businesses at this address around this time including a photographic studio and The Tiffany Glass Company. But it is surely no coincidence that a shirt store in Pittsburgh bearing the name Jones, and its successor, are both linked to the same address as the ill-fated Day Star.

Perhaps in retrospect, Jones would have done better just sticking to selling shirts.

 

First few paragraphs. Rough Draft only ...

Conley, Faith Cure and Money

 

            While the prophetic failures of 1881 precipitated division, they were not the prime cause. Paton’s deflection centered on declining influence and a return to his universalist belief. From the beginning, he and Russell were separated by their beliefs, and separation was inevitable. Jones sought in rejection of key portions of the Bible an excuse for behaviors few Christians would accept. William Conley’s slow, painful withdrawl from Watch Tower association dates to the same year, but there is no evidence to suggest it was related to failed prophetic expectations. Russell connected it to status and finance:

 

The nearest we ever came to asking money from any convinced us that such a course is wholly contrary to the Lord's will. That instance was in 1881, when over a million copies of “Food for Thinking Christians” were published and circulated. We then remembered a Brother, who was well-to-do, and who had repeatedly shown a deep interest in the cause, and who had said to us, “Brother R____, whenever you see something good, something specially calculated to spread the light and needing money, something in which you intend to invest, let me know of it – count me in on all such enterprises;” and we merely laid the matter before him, explaining the plan and the amount of money that could be used, without making any direct request. The Brother gave liberally, yet apparently the offering brought him only a partial blessing. And, perhaps from fear that we would call further opportunities to his notice, and from a lack of full appreciation of our motives in the matter or of the light in which we regarded it (as a favor toward him to let him know of the opportunity), that Brother has gone backward and lost much of his former interest. How much the above circumstance had to do with his decline of interest we know not, but it doubly strengthened and guarded us on a point on which we were already well settled, namely, that no direct and personal appeals should be made to any in our Lord's name. All the gold and silver is his. He neither begged nor commissioned any to beg for him.[1]

 

            This is an obvious reference to Conley. We should note that Russell continues to call him ‘brother’ in 1890, revealing a continuing relastionship he did not have with Barbour, Paton or Jones. But as a brother, Conley had taken a step backwards. Russell saw Conley’s four thousand dollar donation to the tract work as liberal and speculated that fear of further calls on his wealth caused Conley to withdraw.      

Evidence suggests that Russell mistook the nature of Conley’s “deep interest.” Conley supported many religious causes, including those whose beliefs differed from his own. He gave room in his home for Paton to lecture, but in 1894 he wrote to Russell saying: “As to myself, you an rely on one thing; viz.; All report stating that I deny the ransom are aboslutely false. The no-ransom people may talk, but they ‘have nothing in me.’”[2] Conley advertised in Jones Day Star, but we think it was recoup money owed to Conley & Ritter, rather than as support for Jones’ later views. The Conleys supported alternative religious movements in various ways out of a sense of ‘doing good.’

Russell is correct when he suggests that Conley did not appreciate his motives. Conley was a religious gad fly. He did not share many of Russell’s beliefs. He was not committed to an urgent last days’ message. While Russell was divesting himself of commercial interests, Conley was cultivating his. The Allegheny belivers were diverse, and Conley’s last religious belief suggests he retained his millennialist Lutheran beliefs throughout the years he associated with Russell.[3] What united them was a belief in the nearness of final judgment. They were not united in most basic doctrine, and when they were their emphasis was different. Much of Conley’s drift away from Zion’s Watch Tower is due to this shift in emphasis.

 

Faith Cure

 

            The faith cure movement as expressed in this era come to America from Germany and Switzerland, but it took on a distinctivly American flavor. Russell encountered it at least by 1878 when me met Jenny Smith at the New York City Prophetic Conference. As you will recall from volume one of this work, Smith believed herself cured by faith. Russell was interested, if not in her personally, at least in her claims. Other Watch Tower associates were interested too, and the topic was discussed in The Watch Tower.

---

[1]              C. T. Russell: Where Does the Money Come From? Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1890, page 2.

[2]              W. H. Conley to Russell found in the July 11, 1894, issue of Zion’s Watch Tower, page 176.

[3]              This is a good place to review volume one, pages -.

Who Was That Masked Man?

by Jerome

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

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.

We now have all of these ...

Conley again ...

We're trying to follow W. H. Conley's path into faith cure. We can document his attendance at two faith cure meetings in the early 1880s and one in the 1890s. We don't need more documentation on That issue for the 1890s, but we need much for documentation for his adventures in faith healing in the 1880s. I've looked everywhere I know to look. Anyone else?

A disappointment

As one or two associates may know, I have been trying to obtain the 1886 year of AD Jones’ Day Star from the Library of Congress. Visitors to the library have previously been daunted by the surviving volume being off site, and by the time it could be retrieved they were on a plane to somewhere else.
 

The result of correspondence to and fro since last December resulted in the volume being looked at closely, and the following was the gist of the final message:
 

There is no possibility of microfilming pages so large. However, they could be digitized at 300 dpi, with a page-turner, and loaded up onto the Library of Congress site, but at the moment, there is a huge queue of material waiting for this treatment, plus a big gap in the budget, so digitizing fragile materials is proceeding very slowly apace. In the meantime these volumes are boxed in an acid-free box, and, apart from being looked at for the query they are stored flat in a map cabinet and are in cold storage.
 

The message ended:
 

You could try writing again in about three or four years.

Chart of the Ages

This is a canvas chart of the ages, printed for 'chart talks.' We have to sell it to help pay medical bills. So I'm posting this photo so you can see it before it goes away.

28 x 19 inches

We need to know ...

If the W. H. Conley who shared business interests with Rockefeller was 'our' W. H. Conley. Anyone?

Details

It is probably not fruitful to ask, but we need the details of the ...

Faith Cure Convention, held in Pittsburgh's Third Presbyterian Church, November 24-25, 1885. A. B. Simpson attended and (we think) so did W. H. Conley.

Anyone:

Conley

We need help establishing a connectin between Dr. G. D. Bruce of Pittsburgh and W. H. Conley. Our sole connection so far is a stay in a Philadelphia hotel on the same date. We think there is a larger connection. Can you help?

We need to establish when Conley met A. B. Simpson.

Blog content

This is in response to a comment on Jerome’s article. 

The research mantle has not fallen on Jerome. If Bruce and I  were for some reason to end our project, we would take this blog down. Bruce remains in active control of our project. We continue to write and research, though none of the recent results are solid enough to appear here. 

Jerome follows his own interests. He is free to post what ever he wants as long as it’s relevant to early Watch Tower history.  

Presumptions are ‘iffy” and most often wrong.

Three sisters

 by Jerome

Important note: Grateful thanks are due to correspondent Bernhard who supplied some of the information below. Regrettably I am not able to give references in support of some dates, but I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of the information.

The title “Three Sisters” may bring to mind a famous play by Anton Chekhov, likely inspired by the three Brontë sisters, Charlotte, Emily and Anne.

However, this article is going to briefly consider three who were classed as sisters within the framework of the ZWT fellowship. They all had something remarkable in common – they all served as directors of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society (from 1894 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) during the time of CTR’s presidency.

If this concept is a surprise to modern readers, there are two facts about those early days that must be recognized. First, women had a much more public role in the Society’s affairs in those days. CTR’s wife, Maria, for example was an associate editor of the Watch Tower for a number of years. (See Proclaimers book footnote, page 645).

And second, it must be realized that the role of directors in those early days was mainly figurative. In A Conspiracy Exposed (pages 55-60) CTR explained that for legal reasons they needed directors, but it was always understood that matters were so arranged to allow him (along with Maria at that time) to retain control. There was no annual meeting, and elections, such as they were, took place on the first Saturday of each New Year. Hence J B Adamson in that same document complained that as a director he never made a decision. Later, Maria in the separation hearing testimony, made a similar comment about her role as secretary-treasurer. Directors would include some of CTR’s contacts in Pittsburgh and Allegheny, and in many cases, those who were on hand by living in or at least working in the Bible House. But they didn’t “direct” – they were just names on paper. As time went on, a number of members of the Pittsburgh Bible House family (and later Brooklyn Bethel family) simply stepped in and filled gaps as directors – often for quite brief times – under the administration of CTR.

So, our three “sisters” who were directors?

The first female director, was of course, Maria Russell herself. Maria Frances Ackley was born in 1850.

She married CTR in 1879 and later that year worked with him as the fledgling ZWT magazine was launched. Her sister Emma married CTR’s father, Joseph, the following year, 1880.

In 1881 Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was formed with William Conley as president, Joseph L Russell as vice president and CTR as secretary-treasurer. On Monday, December 15, 1884 this society was legally incorporated in Pittsburgh. Maria became a director and an officer of the new incorporated Society – as secretary-treasurer. On paper this meant that she replaced CTR who had previously held that position, but who now became president of the new official arrangement.

Maria remained as secretary-treasurer in name until the annual meeting on January 5, 1895. Although no longer an officer, she remained on the books as a director until February 12, 1900 when she resigned. She was replaced by either Albert E Williamson or Clara Taylor (two new directors were required at this election).

Her subsequent history is quite easy to trace. The contemporary newspaper St Paul Enterprise in its Memorial number when CTR died gives an account of her in the funeral cortege. She later moved to Florida with her sister, Emma, and died in St Petersburg, Florida, in 1938. There is some biographical material for her on the Find a Grave site, under Maria F Ackley Russell.

The second female director was also a Vice-President of the Society for a very short time. This was Rose Ball Henninges. Early census returns list her as Rosa (rather than Rose) J Ball - but no-one seems to know what the J stood for. She and her brother, Charles, came to Pittsburgh. Charles died in March 1889 and Rose became part of the Russell household and then Bible House family. She is included in many group photographs of the day, along with a young man named Ernest Charles Henninges, whom she would marry in 1897. (He too would be a director at one point).

 

A young Rose Ball sitting in a group photo with her future husband Ernest Henninges in 1893.

Rose became a director on April 11, 1892. Two directors were replaced on that date, William I Mann and Joseph F Smith, so she replaced one of them. On January 7, 1893, Rose became Vice-President for a year, until the next year’s elections on January 6, 1894. After that she remained as a director until she resigned on February 12, 1900 (the same official date as for Maria Russell). As noted above, she was then replaced by either Albert E Williamson or Clara Taylor. 

A few years after her marriage to Ernest Henninges, Rose and Ernest travelled abroad to further the cause. They spent some time in Britain (you can find them in the 1901 UK census) and then Germany, before eventually travelling to Australia. They spent the rest of their lives there. A split occurred between them and CTR over the understanding of “the New Covenant” and they founded their own journal in 1909, which ran until 1953. Charles died in 1939, and Rose in 1950. She was survived by two sisters still living in America, Miss Lilian Ball of Buffalo, NY, and Mrs Daisy Mabee of Paterson, NJ.

As already mentioned in passing, the third female director was Clara Taylor. Clara became a director on February 12, 1900. On this date both Maria F Russell and Rose J Ball (now Henninges) resigned, so Clara replaced one of them. As already noted, the other replacement director appointed that day was Albert E Williamson.

Clara served as a director for less than a year. At the next election on the first Saturday of the New Year, January 5, 1901, she resigned and was replaced by William E Van Amburgh. He would become one of the longest serving directors in the Society's history. (Only Milton Henschel, Lyman Swingle and Frederick Franz would serve for longer).

Clara is featured in some group photographs of the Bible House family in the first decade of the 20^th century. Below is a selection from a photograph showing the mailing room c. 1907.

Clara in the Bible House mailing room c. 1907

All we know at present about Clara Taylor comes from the separation hearing Russell v. Russell from 1906.  She was called as a witness to support the testimony of J A Bohnet, and was both examined and cross examined in the case.

Her testimony shows that she was working at Bible House in 1897 before Maria Russell left for Chicago to stay with her brother, Lemuel. CTR had been called away from home and telephoned Ernest Henninges (misspelled Hennings in the transcript) to ask if could arrange for someone to stay over at Bible House so that Maria would not be left on her own. (Most workers lodged outside the building). Clara was asked and agreed, but was then told by Henninges that she no longer needed to do this because Maria had told him via the internal speaking tube that she’d made her own arrangements.  That was the sum of her testimony. But it showed that Clara worked at Bible House in 1897 before Maria left. A passing comment indicated that she had not been there the previous year, 1896. She was also still working there in 1906. And crucially for subsequent attempts to trace her, she was addressed several times as Miss Clara Taylor. So she was single at the time.

When the headquarters moved to Brooklyn in 1909, Clara apparently didn’t go. Or at least, she is not in the census returns from 1910 onwards. Whether that was due to the New Covenant controversy, or just a matter of geography and family, is not known. She may well have married, in which case the surname Taylor would disappear, making tracing her subsequent movements somewhat problematic.

So Clara remains a bit of mystery, even though she spent around ten years working at the headquarters, and was one of the three sisters who became directors of the Society in the CTR era.

More details on the unsuccessful search can be found in the comment trail.

Names from the past

From the back page of the January 1905 Solon Society Journal. Henry Weber from Oakland, Maryland (recently deceased at this time) and Andrew Pierson from Cromwell, Connecticut were both directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and both served as Vice Presidents in its history. They both ran horticulture businesses.

Please remember ...

Please remember to recomend our books to your friends. We pay most of our research costs from the sale of our books. Original research is expensive. The more copies we sell, the more we can expend on costs.

Making connections

Research turns up unexpected things. We now know that W. I. Mann and W. H. Conley had a direct business connection. It's not an earth-shaking find, but every detail adds to the story.

Update!

W. H. Conley was in Philadelphia in January 1883 to hear a Faith Cure lecture. This is an important find. We found this in January 24, 1883, Enquirer.