The Case of Eld. M. B. Czechowski.
By John Nevins Andrews
Eld. C. was sent to Europe as a missionary by the first-day Adventists nearly ten years since. Though he had formerly been a preacher among the Seventh-day Adventists, it was known that he was not at that time in sympathy with them as a body. It was understood by those who sent Eld. C. to Europe that he would not preach the views of the Seventh-day Adventists, but simply the doctrine of the near advent. It was supposed by ourselves, at the time that he was thus sent forth, that he had virtually renounced the seventh day as the Sabbath. We had therefore no hand in sending him on this mission, and for a considerable number of years had no communication from him. Before Eld. C. was sent on this mission by the first-day Adventists, he had asked to be thus sent by ourselves. But we thought him not at that time prepared for so responsible an undertaking. We therefore requested him to wait, hoping that he might be better prepared after a time, and that circumstances might be so ordered in the providence of God that we could feel it safe and advisable to send him on this mission. We regarded Eld. C. as an upright man, and one that feared God. But we did not think him a prudent manager, especially in financial matters. For reasons of this kind the Seventh-day Adventists held back as to his mission to Europe, and also with respect to some of his plans for work in this country. We expected that he would at some time be sent to Europe, but did not see the way clear to send him then. Eld. C. was grieved at this, and in his feelings drew off from us, and threw himself into the hands of the first-day Adventists. We do not know what pledges, if any, were made by him to them, but it is certain that they did not expect him to preach the Sabbath in connection with the Advent faith. Doubtless, as Eld. C. understood the case, he was at liberty to preach the whole truth as he believed it. He therefore preached, not only the near advent of Christ, but also taught the people that they must keep all the commandments of God in order to be prepared to meet the Saviour in peace. As the result of this labor, he raised up a body of Sabbath-keeping Adventists in Switzerland, numbering forty or fifty. These brethren and sisters were, after a time, anxious to become acquainted with the Sabbath-keepers of America. They discovered that those who were in correspondence with Eld. C., and who sustained him in his mission, were not observers of the seventh day. Of the Sabbath-keeping Adventists, they knew nothing. In the meantime, though they loved Eld. C. for his many excellent qualities, and honored him as the instrument in God’s hand of bringing them to a knowledge of the truth, they saw that his financial management was not wise, and that it was leading directly to serious embarrassment, and to troubles of many kinds. The crisis at length came. Borrowed money became due. The property which he had purchased for a mission house and a printing office was only paid for in part, and was mortgaged for some of his debts. Before the foreclosure of the mortgage, however, those who sent Eld. C. to Europe instituted an inquiry into his affairs, and because of his having preached the Sabbath, they refused to aid him any further with their means. About the same time, the Swiss brethren, of their own accord, opened a communication with our Office at Battle Creek. They gave some account of their experience and their religious views, and made particular inquiry as to our relation to Eld. C., and the circumstances under which he had gone to Europe. Owing to some difficulty in the matter of translation, these questions were not at once answered; but after a space, they were carefully and frankly answered. It was in this manner, and without any seeking on our part, that a communication with our dear and valued Swiss brethren was opened, which has been kept up till the present time. Not long after we had begun to communicate with these brethren, we learned the situation of the office property, and also the financial embarrassments of Eld. C., who had gone into Hungary to engage in business in order to raise the money which he needed to pay these debts. As we found it somewhat difficult to communicate with the brethren in Switzerland, we invited Bro. Albert Vuilleumier to attend our next General Conference. As Bro. V. could not come, the brethren sent Bro. Ertzenberger, who came and spent a considerable period with us. After the coming of Bro. Ertzenberger, we learned more particularly of the situation of things in Switzerland. We then took steps to raise a sum sufficient to redeem the mission house and office. We made these conditions, however, 1. That the property should, in the judgment of the brethren there, be worth what it would cost to redeem it. 2. That if thus redeemed, Eld. C. should consent that the ownership of the building should thenceforth be vested in an association of the brethren in Switzerland, and not in himself alone. But Eld. C. would not consent to this, and in the judgment of the Swiss brethren there was no chance to save anything by redeeming the building, as it would cost its full value, if not more, to redeem it. So the matter failed. We sincerely desired to help the cause of truth in Switzerland, and at the same time to show proper respect to Eld. C., and to deal justly with all parties concerned in the matter. But we did not think it proper to pay out the money unless we would see it put to such use as should save it to the cause of truth. It was useless to redeem the office if it was still exposed to, we knew not how many, debts and claims. If we were to pay claims standing against Eld. C., we thought it necessary that the business should be managed by the brethren there, and that he should be willing to take their advice. We thought the circumstances of this case were of themselves sufficient to prove this. Eld. C. seemed to resent the suggestion, and to insist on absolute independence of all his brethren. And so the matter has stood for a series of years. The foregoing statement is called out by the fact that, under date of May 21, 1873, Eld. C. has written to our Office at Battle Creek, stating that we “have plucked away” his “only means of support” from his friends in Boston, and have annexed his mission, and should therefore promptly pay at least two of his debts, which are likely to give him trouble in July next. These amount to about $1000. Now it is not for me as an individual to say what our people as a body may or may not do. This belongs to the General Conference Committee, so far as authority to represent them is concerned. But it is proper that I should say a few words relative to the mistaken view of things under which Eld. C. labors. 1. It is not correct that we plucked away from him his Boston friends, i. e., the first-day Adventists who, for a time, sustained him. They learned of the nature of his preaching from Europe, and not from ourselves; and they knew that the Sabbath had been promulgated by him as early as it was known to us as a body. We did not turn the first-day Adventists against him. They ceased to support him because of dissatisfaction with what he had preached. 2. Nor is it true that we interfered between Eld. C. and the Swiss brethren. His financial embarrassments had caused him to go to Hungary before we began to know anything in particular of the Swiss brethren. Then it was that they wrote us for information in the case. The circumstances of the case have not been without embarrassment and pain to us. We have never wronged Eld. C., nor in a single particular done injustice to those who sent him to Europe. 3. We cannot, therefore, be required to assume obligations which we never contracted, and which were contracted at a time when he was not in any sense acting under our counsel or in fulfillment of commission from our people. It is manifestly absurd to assert that the Seventh-day Adventists are legally holden for his debts, or to intimate that they will be required by law to pay them. I have made this statement with feelings of tenderness and respect toward Eld. C. It is possible that in some particular I have erred, but I think in every item of importance the above statement is correct. J. N. ANDREWS,
Lancaster, Mass.