REPORT FROM IOWA by George I. Butler

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 14, 1869

REPORT FROM IOWA.

By George I. Butler

Since we last reported, our meetings have continued in Richland, with no interruption, except from rain. But we have had, as usual this season, drenching showers from time to time, which has seriously hindered the work. Such continual rain as we have had this year has not been known before for many years in this State.

But in spite of these unfavorable circumstances, we have had quite a good interest. Our attendance has averaged several hundred. It has, most of the time, been greater than at Sigourney. Reports from other places had come in here quite extensively, and there was, at first, a strong prejudice against us. But this prejudice has been wearing off, and the people are now very friendly.

Bro. Canright's health has been very poor; this has been a very serious drawback to the interest of our meetings. He took a hard cold about the time we left Sigourney, which settled upon his lungs, and it has seriously weakened him.

Last week Bro. Canright had a five days' discussion with Elder J. R. Cornell, Disciple, of Brighton, the same man who discussed with Bro. Cornell last fall in B. Nearly all the time we were at Sigourney there was an effort made by a citizen of this place, and others in S., to get up such a discussion. But as we declined to challenge, it fell through. After we came here, these efforts were renewed. We did not desire a discussion on our part, and we felt much crippled on account of Bro. Canright's health. But the matter was brought up in such a shape at the close of one of our meetings, that for the sake of the cause we did not dare do otherwise than to enter into it. We were virtually forced to it.

Things looked very discouraging indeed. Bro. C. felt hardly able to preach a single discourse two days before it commenced. They demanded a five days' discussion, two sessions of two hours each day. For the sake of the cause we thought best to accept, and the discussion was entered upon. We felt that it was a time in which to look to the Lord for special help, and we are satisfied that he heard prayer. Bro. Canright's strength increased every day till near the close. The impression is general that a victory for the truth was gained. In the main, the discussion was a very pleasant one, not being characterized by that acrimonious spirit so generally seen in debates. An excellent impression has been made upon the community. We feel very well satisfied with the result. The question was in regard to the ten commandments' being binding, and the usual arguments were adduced on both sides.

One of the most interesting points in the discussion came out on Matt. v. In reply to Bro. Canright's argument on verses 17–20, the Elder referred to the 23d verse, where the offering of gifts and altars is brought to view, and he claimed that the law spoken of would include the offerings of the typical system, and thus prove too much for our view. In answering this, Bro. Canright took up the remaining portion of the chapter at some length, and claimed from the words of Christ that the distinction in the two laws was most plainly manifest. Perhaps there is no scripture where this distinction is more clearly shown. In the very verse referred to, this distinction is manifest. The offering of gifts according to the ceremonial law would be of no consequence while the principles of the law of God had been transgressed. Therefore the person must be first reconciled to his brother, then his gift would be acceptable. The prophet says of Christ that he should “magnify the law and make it honorable.” In this scripture he takes up the sixth and seventh commandments, and shows how far their principles extend, making them all-important. But when the Saviour takes up some precepts of the law of Moses, he speaks very differently. In verse 31, where the Saviour speaks of putting away wives, he takes up what was said of this, in Deut. xxiv, 1, and declares it of no authority.

The Elder, in replying to this, said that this law was given on the authority of Moses alone; as though Moses would take the responsibility of enacting a law himself which God did not approve of, and place it with those which God had given.

But in verse 38: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” The Saviour quotes directly from the words of God to Moses, found in Ex. xxi, 24, and declares this precept set aside. So of several others mentioned in this chapter, given in the book of the law. The Elder could not be persuaded to make the effort to tell us why it was that Christ, in speaking of these two precepts in the ten commandments, extended these principles much more than they had been understood before; but in these others from the book of the law, he directly changes them or sets them aside.

Bro. Canright made this look so plain, and his opponent made such a failure in trying to explain it, that it made quite an impression. This chapter is one of the strongest proofs of two separate laws that there is to be found, as strong in that direction, perhaps, as in the proof of the perpetuity of the moral law.

But I will not further take up the limited room in the REVIEW to speak of this discussion, though it was a very interesting one. We had a crowd of people out most of the time, especially evenings. Now we are trying to follow up the interest. Several are already keeping the Sabbath here, and we hope for good results. GEO. I. BUTLER. Richland, Iowa, Sept. 6, 1869.