REPORT FROM BRO. HULL by Moses Hull

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 24, 1861

REPORT FROM BRO. HULL.

By Moses Hull

I ARRIVED at Mannsville, Aug. 28, and commenced preaching the night of the 30th. Owing to a camp-meeting in the neighborhood, which was creating great excitement, our congregations were small. The Lord gave some freedom in preaching to those who were present, and the brethren were much revived.

On sixth-day, Sept. 6, the church met for business, when it was resolved to come into church order. After which the following church covenant was signed:

"We, the undersigned, do unite in church capacity, taking the name, Seventh-day Adventists, as our church name, pledging ourselves to strive to keep all the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, to meet together from Sabbath to Sabbath (and oftener if necessary) to worship God in singing and prayer, and in exhorting one another, and so much the more as we see the day approaching."

Eld. Turner came on according to appointment, but came determined not to have a discussion.

1. He would not have it commence at the time we had expected and appointed.

2. He would not agree to any proposition we could make.

I offered to affirm that the law spoken by the voice of God on mount Sinai, and written upon tables of stone, is binding through the gospel dispensation.

He objected, that there was no issue there—that he believed in the perpetuity of nine of the ten commandments. I then proposed to affirm that each one of the ten commandments is binding throughout the gospel dispensation. This would give him a chance to show the repeal of the Sabbath, or any other one of the ten commandments, and thus overthrow me. But to the great surprise of many who were present, he refused this.

I then proposed to affirm that the seventh-day Sabbath was made at creation, and the precept to observe it extends through this age; but he would not debate this. I asked him to affirm the repeal of the ten commandments; but his reply was that he did not believe it. I then asked him to affirm the repeal of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; but this did not meet his approbation. He said that he kept the first day of the week; but I could not prevail upon him to defend his practice on this point. He would not affirm anything. Nor would he permit me to affirm, unless I would permit him to make a proposition for me (a thing entirely unprecedented), which did not embrace more than half the issue, and shut me out of my best proof texts. He presented, and asked me to affirm the following:

Resolved, That the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is binding throughout the gospel dispensation. This proposition is fair as far as it goes; but it does not cover the whole issue. My brethren sent for me to discuss the whole ground of difference between us, so they decided not to have me discuss such a proposition. So with this we parted.

But instead of sleeping that night the following reflections were passing through my mind. Have I done my duty? Should I refuse to defend a part of the truth on the law question because I cannot have the privilege of defending it all? His proposition is fair as far as it goes. I will accept it. So the next morning I sent word to him that I would accept his proposition, and if I had not known that he was determined not to debate, I should have expected the discussion to have commenced that evening. But he arose in the congregation and said that he declined debating with Eld. Hull, as he was not a gentleman. Wonder if Christ stopped to inquire whether the Devil was a gentleman before entering into a forty days' combat. But it happened that he told Eld. Summerbell, a Seventh-day Baptist minister, only a few moments before that there could be no discussion, as Eld. Hull had backed out. Eld. S. replied that it could not be possible that Bro. H. had backed out. Yes he has, says T. He has backed out. Well, says Eld. S., if he has backed out, I will back in, and we will have the question debated. This took the wind out of T.'s sails, and caused him to seek some one else as a more appropriate subject of his deception.

Now the reader is ready to ask the reason why Eld. T. was afraid to debate. Well, there are two reasons. One was that the report of the discussions with Elds. Smith and Sweet had reached him. Elder Smith had written a letter informing him of the probable consequences if he debated with me. Another is, a want of ability. I heard him preach two discourses on the law, and such a display of ignorance as was manifested in his first discourse is hard to be found this side of the Aborigines of the far west. I would here give specimens of his display of ignorance, but I have mercy on him. More anon.

MOSES HULL.