West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1892-09-22
Rev. G. III. Cox, OF the United Breth.
rem Church. Replies to Rev. VIM.
Hutchinson, of the Seventh
Day Adventists.
INDEPENDnNcE, w. VA, }
Sept. 10, 1892. (

Dear Sir,-After thanking you
Tor the copy of your paper sent me,
kindly ask space to reply to the
communication of Rev. Mr. Hutch
inson which appeared in your issue
of the 9Th INST.
lie says that he has never "back-
cd out, Well, we will simply ex.
anime his own language and the
circumstances connected with the
case and from these draw our con.
clusion. by examining his com.
mun;cation it will be observed that
he says, eff your proposal holds
good until tho 9Th of September
and you are willing to make little
change IN your third resolution. >,
&c. Does not this show an unwilI-
ingness to meet me on my third
resolution, as had stated it to him ?
And then he says, 4" There is one
other matter to be taken into con-
sideration. AS you have no peonle
In Reedsvillc or immediate vicinity.
hence no pastoral duties to perform
here, and as it is affirmed and re-
aflrmed Gf we can rely upon re-
ports) that you are coming here II
pald laborer to perform work for
/ IL.
the local preacher, therefore it is
necessary that said local preacher.
(Mr. Skidmore), whose church YOU
have secured, endorse you as his
representative. l have never re-
fused to debate with any minister Of
good standing inside his own pas
toral jurisdiction but when a min.
Istcr sends me a challenge Gas in
the present case) to meet him in
debate in the place and jurisdiction
OF another, | absolutely refuse un-
less the above conditions are com.
piled with"
The reader viii observe that the
word conditions" is used and
that there are only two conditions
specified III his communication
First, must change my third reso-
luton, otherwise he refuses to meet
me second, MIR. Skidmore must
endorse me as his representative,
otherwise he refuses to meet me.
and makes it strong by saying, e.
absolutely refuse, unless the above
conditions are complied with
Ana as l did not sec proper to
change my third resolution, and as
Mr.. Skidmore was not party
known In cithor the challenge or in
any previous arrangement, therefore
1T was impractIcable to require him
to endorse me as his representative,
therefore my challenge rests at his
(Mr. Hutchinson's) refusal, is the
only reasonable conclusion that can
be drawn from his statement.
And in order to further show to
the public the inconsistency of Mr..
Hutchinson, wish to notice few
other statements in his commune
cation. First, he says, +" As it is
affirmed and re-affirmed Of we can
rely upon reports) that you are
coming here paid laborer to per-
form work for the local preacher"
&c. And then in the second place
he says, "Therefore it is necessary
that said local preacher, CIR. Skid
more) whose church you have Sc
cured" Sc. Now Mr.. Hutchinson
most assuredly anew that was not
employed to do work for Mr.. Skid |
moro, or else / would not have been
under the necessity Of securing his
church, for if had been employed
to do Mr.. Skidmore's work, the use
of tho church would naturally have
been understood in the contract.
and if had been employed to do
work for Mr.. Skidmore, this would
naturally have placed me az his
representative. SO anyone with a
reasonable degree Of observation can
sec that this proposed condition of
Mr.. Hutchinson's is simply dodge.
And then he says, " As you have
no people in Reodsyillc or imme-
date vicinity, hence no pastoral
duties to perform horo," sc. We'll.
that would just have placed me on
an equal footing with him, for he
had no people ut Reedsville or i'm
mediate vicinity. SO you see an
other dodge Of his. lie says, 81
have never backed out as report.
ed, but am willing to meet him i'm
an eight nights discussion at any
time. Let him staud 10 HE Ohio!