A SLIGHT SKIRMISH by M. Hull

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 24, 1859

A SLIGHT SKIRMISH.

By M. Hull

BRO. SMITH: As "the law of faith" has failed to exclude boasting, at least, as those who profess to be governed by it, are speaking "great swelling words," I propose to mention an item or two in the conduct of those who show their enmity against God by opposing his law.

Soon after I arrived at Russiaville, Ind., I was invited to preach to an age-to-come church, on Wild Cat creek. I accepted the invitation and went there. When I arrived I found prejudice so strong that I could not get a congregation. A few however came out and listened with interest. I was then informed that Eld. N. Hornaday was to commence meetings there on the 7th of January; and I was not only invited, but challenged to attend. I told them that I had no desire to debate with Eld. Hornaday, but if he was willing we would preach alternately upon the subject of the Law and Sabbath until the question was settled.

After reflecting upon my proposition for several days, they concluded to accept it; and accordingly on First day at eleven A. M., I was informed that they had concluded to accept my proposal, and I was to commence preaching in about five minutes. I told them the notice was rather short, but if they would give me a few minutes to reply to the new arguments in H.'s closing speech, I would do so.

I therefore gave a lecture on the origin and perpetuity of the Sabbath, after which, Eld. H. arose and proceeded about an hour, misrepresenting my position, and talking on irrelevant points. He did not even refer to many of my proof texts. He first had the law abolished by John the baptist; or at last had the law and the prophets to last only till John the baptist; after which he had it abolished by Christ's teachings, and once more by the teachings of the apostles, after which it died a natural death. Rather hard to kill, one would think,—killed three times, died one natural death, and nine tenths of it still alive!

But it would take too much time and paper to give even a tithe of his contradictions. Suffice it to say that it would have been impossible to gather his views from his discourse. At one time he had Christ enjoining obedience to every precept of that law, which John the baptist had abolished, and he (Christ) would have been guilty of high treason, had he done any thing less; and at another time he had him violating the fourth precept, and "teaching men so." He continued this course as long as he could think of any thing to say, when he turned his remarks into ridicule about the three messages, asserting that I professed to be the third angel, &c &c.

At night we met again and resumed the discussion. I led off, by replying to all that I thought worthy of a reply in his discourse, and introducing new points. In reply he introduced Rom. vii; 2 Cor. iii; and Heb. vii, in connection with other texts which he supposed would sustain no-law-ism. After he was through, I arose to ask what the order of the discussion would be from that time forward, when to my surprise, I was informed that it had now come to an end. I claimed my closing speech. "No sir" was the reply, "the discussion is now ended." I claimed that they had no right to gag me; that if this discussion was not to be resumed the next night, I must have my closing speech; that all that I wanted was the privilege of replying to his new arguments. But Eld. Purvis (one of H.'s friends), arose and said with all the dignity of papal authority, "Sit down, sir! this discussion shall go no farther!" I still remonstrated; but the fiat had gone forth from the leader of the Wild-cat church, whose decrees, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, are unalterable, and I must obey.

Of course the discussion had to stop there. They had resolved and declared, that the subject should not be discussed any further. They made an excuse that the house could not be had; but this objection was entirely removed by a person's saying that he would secure a house. It was evident that they were determined that I should say no more in favor of the Sabbath in that place. But their conduct opened the eyes of some of the honest ones. Praise the Lord!

M. HULL.

Russiaville, Ind.