Nathan Fuller Once More.
By George I. Butler
I ask pardon of the readers of the REVIEW for introducing this name again into our paper. And were it not for the hope of enabling a few honest souls here and there who do not know the facts to get their eyes open, I would not say another word in reference to him. My article in REVIEW of Oct. 15, on this subject, evidently stirred things some in Marion, Iowa, judging from an article in the Hope of Israel, from the pen of H. E. Carver, the editor of that paper. And I confess to some surprise at the positions which even he has taken. And as he has chosen to stand forth in this public manner as an apologist and defender of this man, and has justified the course of himself and the church over which he has presided as an elder, in receiving Fuller and permitting him to preach for them, we propose to let Mr. Carver shoulder this responsibility, and make a few reflections upon his attitude and statements. Let the readers of the REVIEW notice this: Mr. Carver admits N. Fuller's wickedness in the past in taking advantage for years of his position as a minister of the gospel to seduce and ruin his own flock. He admits they have taken him into the church and permit him to preach for the leading church of their denomination, and justifies this action; and he only denies one out of the terrible catalogue of crimes that I laid to his charge, and this one, merely an unimportant charge compared with the others, viz., “that he took such a course in Macomb Co., Mich., that charges of a similar nature were preferred against him there.” Mark this, I did not say he was guilty of criminal conduct in Michigan. Of this I know nothing. I said that charges of improper conduct were made against him. I have in my possession a letter from a citizen of Macomb Co., Mich., who was personally acquainted with N. Fuller while there, and in this he states that just before he left for Marion, Iowa, he had to defend himself in a court of law against the charge of improper conduct toward a female, and although he was acquitted by the court, the statement I made is fully borne out by this fact. Mr. Carver quotes extracts from private letters to Fuller since he has lived in Marion to make it appear that I have been guilty of falsehood. Of course he has quoted those portions best calculated to prove his point; and it is not to be supposed that individuals writing private friendly letters to a person would state unpalatable facts as their opinion of the man they were writing to which might be prevalent in a community. Yet in these very extracts quoted are expressions which go to show that my statement was correct, although quoted to prove the contrary. Here are several: In a letter from Mrs. E. M. Davy to Fuller, she says, speaking of the future inheritance, there would be “no envious, jealous eyes to look on and misconstrue every word and act.” In another from I. Mudge, he speaks of his acquaintance being short, and says, “I am glad to say I have always felt that you were endeavoring to live a Christian, and my confidence in you has been confirmed.” In another from Wm. H. Osmun, occurs this expression, “Dear Bro., trust in God and all will be right in the end.” It is astonishing that a man of Mr. Carver’s cunning should quote extracts containing such expressions as these to prove that there were no charges made in that community against N. Fuller, and to prove me guilty of falsehood in saying that there were. Mr. Carver, in his desperation to escape from the terrible dilemma in which he at last finds himself, must be losing that peculiar plausibility in making things look smooth for which he has been somewhat noted. As this is the only statement he has attempted to contradict that I made, and as he has miserably failed to prove this one untrue, all reasonable people will draw their own conclusions as to the character of this man, who charges me with falsehood, with being “unchristian,” and with “imbruing my hands in my brother’s blood,” and thinking my “sin” (?) in making a statement of facts which he is unable to disprove, equal in “heinousness” with Nathan Fuller’s course in seducing his own flock for years and lying to cover it up. Mr. Carver’s view of morality must be peculiar. Again, Mr. C. thinks the course that should have been pursued toward Nathan Fuller by those against whom he had sinned, was to have extended the forgiving hand, and “helping their brother to regain his Christian character and reputation,” and quotes the following language of our Saviour as applicable in his case: “If thy brother trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him,” Luke 17: 3, 4, and calls the course of those who turned him out after his crimes were discovered, “unchristian,” because they did not give him “kind words of encouragement.” He speaks about the blood of Christ cleansing from all sin, &c., and compares Fuller’s case to that of Paul who persecuted the church before he was converted, who says of himself that he did it “ignorantly,” and compares it also to that of Peter, who denied his Lord under the terrible pressure of darkness and agony on the night of the crucifixion. Let us notice for a moment the record of the man whose case we are considering. Here is a minister of the gospel, making the highest professions of piety, preaching a preparation for the coming of Christ, and the obligation of the Law of God, deliberately taking advantage of his influence for a space of years to work the eternal ruin of those who looked to him for guidance, taking the livery of the court of Heaven to serve the devil in; and in cases where his hellish purposes were balked, falling upon his knees, and declaring it was the first and only time, and that he had, in an unguarded moment, been overcome, and begging with tears that they would keep it a secret, then going to another and pursuing the same course; and in other cases threatening individuals if they should inform against him, that he would, by virtue of his reputation for piety, destroy their influence, &c. Now Mr. Carver, his new found apologist, steps in, and compares this man’s case to that of the apostles Paul and Peter, and goes so far as to say (I quote his own words), “We are to forgive those who trespass against us, even though it be seven times a day upon a profession of repentance” (the italics are mine), as the principle applicable in this man’s case. Nathan Fuller can now congratulate himself that he has fallen into favorable places if he desires to return to his former course. An elder of the church, and an editor of a religious paper, proclaims beforehand that if a man who attempts and accomplishes the ruin of members of his flock, seven times a day, and turns as often and says, I repent, he must be forgiven. Was the like ever heard? Here are sins before which those of Hophni and Phinehas seem small, for we have no record that they made high professions of piety, for the purpose of ruining the souls of their victims, and yet God says of their sins they should “not be purged with sacrifices or offerings forever,” 1 Sam. 3:14, and they were the cause of the destruction of Eli and all his house. And now a man who has been very forward as a critic, for years endeavoring to show up the sins of the S. D. Adventists, sets forth such doctrine as this. Let it then be understood by all that Mr. Carver upholds and justifies the taking in of Nathan Fuller into the church of which he is elder, and also, his being permitted still to teach his people Christian ethics. Mr. Carver is welcome to his new found instructor, and Nathan Fuller is welcome to his new found apologist. Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, Nov. 7, 1872.