Wounded Birds Will Flutter.
GLANCING over some exchanges which we had long been waiting the opportunity to examine, we find in the Advent Times of April 2, 1872, a report by O. R. Fassett, of the late discussion in San Francisco, between Bro. Cornell, and Eld. Grant. In this there are some things, which, to say the least, are curiosities in the way of a report, and some which show that their cause was made to pass through strait places not at all pleasing to the natural man; In stating the results of the discussion Eld. F. remarks:—
“But as the same ‘sun which melts the wax, hardens the clay,’ so it is discovered in this instance, that some know not when good comes, and harden their hearts, and become petrified and fossilized in error.” That is to say, some (and in such a confession, this word may be taken to mean full all it expresses)—some, as the result of the discussion, were established more firmly than ever in the doctrine of the Sabbath; and how better could he get over this unpleasant fact? Of course (?) that was not the result of the force of the arguments presented, and clear convictions of the truth, but was clay hardening in the sun was becoming petrified and fossilized in error! It is not difficult to divine what such expressions mean. Let the good work go on. Respecting the state of the Sabbath cause in San Francisco, just previous to the discussion, he uses the following amiable language:—
“Besides, the cause he [Cornell] represented was ‘dying out,’ as was well understood, and it was hoped that it would soon expire for its want of grace, unless electrified into new temporary and apparent life by favoring it with undeserved notice, and giving it the warmth and vital air it sought by an association with a living body.” No doubt they hoped it would expire. This has been the hope of error in regard to the truth in all ages. And when the truth has failed to die, then error has set to work with all its power, to destroy it; but even when crushed to earth, it rises again; “for the eternal years of God are hers.” The “living body” of which he boasts is described by Paul in Rom. 7: 9: “For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” They need the law laid in all its power upon their hearts, and they need to die the same death Paul died, a death to carnality and sin, before they can share in Paul’s glorious conversion, or hope to participate in his reward. Our readers would doubtless like to know just what kind of a man Eld. C. is, and so we invite them to look at the following Christian portrait of the creature drawn by Eld. F.:—
“Eld. Grant is a straight forward, scriptural debater, always adhering closely to the sacred text, while Eld. Cornell is a pettifogger, and like every venal pleader of the law, endeavors to ‘make the worse appear the better cause;’ and though, as he said, (intending to apply it to damage the argument of the negative) ‘consistency is a jewel,’ he never fails to condescend to tricks, quibbles, and perversions of the language and arguments of his antagonist, to gain his point if possible. If he gives a report of this discussion, as he summed up his argument, as he no doubt intends to do, this statement will prove true the character I have given him.” Being such a character, of course he deserved the most ignominious treatment, and we are not surprised to learn that Eld. G. gave him (or tried to) a “constant pelting.” Listen again:—
“Eld. Cornell denied, point blank, that the Decalogue was the Old Covenant—admitted that the Old Covenant was abolished—and that if Eld. Grant proved that the Decalogue was the Old Covenant, it was abolished. He maintained that the Decalogue was the law of God, and he shut himself up in this, as he conceived, impregnable fortress as his citadel. Eld. Grant shelled him with a constant pelting of the Scriptures for four successive nights to make him confess what the Old Covenant was, if it was not the Decalogue.” This operation must have been an exhibition worth a trip to California to witness. One disputant “shelling” another in debate, puts the imagination to quite a test; but when we come to the means with which it was done, our philosophy collapses in utter despair. It was done with a “pelting.” How a person could be “shelled” with “a constant pelting” is a greater puzzle than we are able to solve. We are not altogether sure but there is a typographical error here, and he meant to say pelt instead of pelting. We read in Matt. 7: 15 of some who provided themselves with pelts; but it has been reserved to our generation to produce one, so lacking in foresight as to use them up over an opponent, and that, too, in an effort to “shell” him! The writer continues:—
“Eld. Cornell found it was either death, surrender, or escape by an ignominious retreat, and he chose the latter, feeling no doubt that,
“He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day.”
“In his escape he felt such a pelting fire—in denying his evident position, from the audience, that he shed a tear or two, (as I was told by those sitting before him) to awaken sympathy. But the audience has advised him that ‘when he has found out what the Old Covenant is, they wish him to publish it in the city papers, for they desire to know what he thinks it is.’” This represents that Eld. Cornell refused to tell what the old covenant was, or what he thought it was. Now this is too transparent and ridiculous a fabrication to have any effect upon those who are acquainted with the man or the question. All who know of Bro. C.’s manner of conducting a debate, well understand that if it was his misfortune to have to deal with an opponent or with an audience, so obtuse that they could not, or so perverse that they would not, understand his position, when explicitly stated a sufficient number of times, he would reiterate it, if need be, forty times before the session closed. We say this because we know how he rivets an opponent to the point, when he attempts to dodge. Such statements may for a time deceive those who have no other means of information, till God in his benign providence shall give them an opportunity to escape from the clutches of blind guides, and cause all such attempts to mislead to rebound disastrously upon the heads of their authors. With one more quotation from the report in question, we dismiss this subject. It is a sentence which we commend as a good subject to those who are skilled in analyzing the English language. It reads as follows:—
“And a disputant like Eld. Cornell, can never bring honor to a cause worthy of defense, by any victory his opponent may achieve.” The idea which perhaps the writer intended to convey by this language is that Eld. C. is so mean, ignoble, and contemptible, a person, that it is no honor to an opponent to gain a victory over him, however complete that victory may be. If this is so, then we ask, Why this hasty rushing into print by different writers, through the Crisis and Times, to show to the people that he is so weak and unworthy an opponent, and has so signally failed? Are they fearful that the people will not regard him in the contemptuous181light they would like to have them? It is very evident that somebody has been hit, and hit severely. Hence all this courageous whistling, and this ill concealed flutter.