The Cause in Ohio

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 3, 1863

The Cause in Ohio.

SABBATH and first-day, Feb. 21 and 22, we enjoyed a Conference with a few of the scattered friends of the cause, at Gilboa, Ohio. The notice of this meeting was brief, and the traveling dreadful, yet there was in attendance a very good representation from the little congregations of Seventh-day Adventists in the State. Our testimony was well received.

We stated that it would be a pleasure to us to make some statements relative to our connection with past difficulties in Ohio, and give some explanations which we believed would unburden many minds, and in a business meeting we were called upon to do so. We then stated that we could look back to only a few years when the cause seemed as strong and as prosperous in Ohio as in Michigan; that the cause in Ohio was no stronger now than then, while in Michigan it had increased fifty fold; and that we could assign no other reason for the languishing condition of the cause in Ohio, than the injudicious course pursued by some of those from other States who have labored in that State as teachers of the present truth. We then took up the course of different ones who had acted a part in distracting the cause in Ohio, and their influence, the particulars of which we forbear here to mention. We stated that similar influences had been exerted by certain preachers in Michigan, but they had been held in check so as to do comparatively but little harm. That while these influences had succeeded in destroying the confidence of nearly all of the brethren in Ohio in the Review, and the testimonies sent out by Mrs. W., they had failed to do this in Michigan, and now the real strength in Michigan compared with Ohio, is fifty to one.

Our statements and explanations relieved the brethren. Mrs. W. had a cheering testimony, and the brethren seemed greatly revived. Bro. T. J. Butler attended most of the meetings, and was much relieved by the explanations which we gave of the unhappy past with which he and we had been connected. His mind has been greatly abused by others, and he has spoken and acted as he would not have done under other circumstances. He arose in our midst and made remarks of the most candid and satisfactory character. We enjoyed a pleasant interview with him and his good wife at their home, and felt to pray that God would heal all the wounds which apparently had been inflicted through the folly of others, and bring him into the ranks again strong to stand in the defense of the truth. We parted as friends part. In fact there never has been anything between us of an unhappy personal nature. It has been the influence of others which has caused alienation, which we trust has ceased for ever. We now have such confidence in his integrity, and love for his frankness, that, should he never come into the ranks again, should we meet him again in this life we should hail him as a friend. We do not justify his past course in many things, neither need we undertake the task of pointing out his past errors; for we have reason to believe that he is ready to retrace every wrong step when in a Christian manner pointed out to him, and frankly confess on his part to those to whom confession is due. We wish we could say as much of some who have acted a part in casting him down.

This is the fitting up time, the time to make wrongs right. The truth was doing a good work for Bro. B., and had not the tongue of treachery in some, and a blind zeal in others, succeeded in separating him from the cause of the third message, he might now be standing free in defense of the truth in Ohio. Had we better understood matters in Ohio, we should not have given some statements in the Review, bearing heavily upon Bro. B. Again we repeat that we resolve to avoid as far as possible, introducing local and personal matters into the Review. We are often imposed upon by statements which represent persons in a wrong light, and in publishing them we are in danger of acting a part in oppressing those no more in the fault than the accusing party.

Did Bro. B. err in pressing the name, "Church of God?" his brethren erred equally with him and urged him on to be firm. When they saw their error, they should have been very sparing of their blame, and slow to talk of "secesh." Did Bro. B. err in introducing a plan to raise means to sustain the cause, different from the plan of systematic benevolence, being generally adopted? Then those ministers who assented to it at a certain conference also erred. Was he "secesh" in this? so were they. We say, let those who may find themselves liable to fall into error, above all others be slow to censure the erring. And may the misfortunes of the past teach all wisdom and true Christ-like forbearance. O God, bring again the wandering, and heal the wounds of thy people.

Bro. Waggoner is laboring in Ohio with some success. We hope for brighter days for the cause in that State. The financial committee more than paid our traveling expenses, being aware that preachers have some other expenses besides their R. R. fare.