THE SABBATH DISCUSSION by J. H. W.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 18, 1859

THE SABBATH DISCUSSION.

By J. H. W.

STEPHENSON, CHOWN AND REPORTER.

BRO. SMITH: By the kindness of a friend I have just been favored with Review No. 10, containing your remarks on what purports to be a report of the discussion at Crane's Grove, Ills. I have examined this publication, which shows that I was fully justified in protesting against their report, which I did in the tent. The reporter, (!) as he claims to be in the pamphlet, publicly announced that he was not an experienced reporter, and could not give a verbatim report, and Mr. Stephenson said they were all taking notes, and should revise his report by their notes. A glance at the book will satisfy any one that they have done this, evidently to their own satisfaction.

Under the circumstances it was supposed by my friends, and so expressed, that it would be necessary to review and expose their course in regard to this report. But on reading the book my mind is entirely changed. They have so far overdone the matter that it must be its own antidote in the hands of every honest, candid reader.

In the Preface it is recommended as a correct report; and one reason for their so judging is that it so nearly corresponds with Eld. Chown's report from his notes! As Mr. S. is fond of logic we will state his reason here in a logical form. Thus: Eld. Chown took notes: the report agrees with Eld. Chown's notes: hence, the report is right! This is according to what Mr. S. said: they depended on their notes more than on the reporter.

Notes are only expected to gather some of the sentiments. A Report is designed to record the expression. Therefore a report that has to be corrected or judged by notes is no report at all. But another query arises. Was Eld. Chown competent to take notes? The following facts may cast light on this:

Joseph Marsh and J. M. Stephenson have had a discussion in the Expositor on the pre-requisites of Baptism. This paper discussion was drawn out by Mr. Marsh's declining to publish a report of a Western Conference, in which a resolution had been passed on that subject. Of this refusal Mr. Stephenson complained, but Mr. Marsh justified himself on the ground that the report of the Conference, of which Mr. Chown was clerk, was not got up in a manner fit for publication, and he had no time to re-write communications. And then to show the groundlessness of Mr. S.'s complaint, he states that the same objection existed against Mr. Chown's report of the debate; that it was not fit for publication, and that Mr. Stephenson himself prepared Eld. Chown's report for publication in the Expositor! No wonder Mr. Stephenson recommends Mr. Chown's report, and notices its harmony with the other. Having revised and corrected both of them, if they do not agree, it cannot be his fault!

Your remarks in regard to the amount of matter reported are correct. A teacher of phonography followed me a while last winter on the same subject. He said I spoke about two hundred words per minute, and said also that no one could report for me but an experienced reporter, and one being in practice; as I spoke rapidly and with little or no recapitulation or repetition. I open this book at random and find a speech purporting to be of half an hour, containing 1257 words. I turn to another and it contains 1161—about six minutes' speaking! Two sentences in the last read as follows: "But if he uses it to show there's a force in using it also to show"

But if this calculation be objected to we will look at it from their side, that is, allowing their claims to be just, that it is in the main a faithful report. Here is nearly a full report of a thirty minutes' speech containing 1200 words, just forty words per minute! and yet the Reporter declared we both spoke too rapidly to be reported. A good writer may nearly reach that number in common long-hand, and a moderate practice of the corresponding style of phonography will overrun it. But if I did not speak over fifty words per minute, why these broken sentences? One of two things is certainly true—either the pretended report does not give one third of the amount spoken, or else the pretended reporter cannot write in phonography much faster than I can write in long-hand. They may take either side, but either side will utterly condemn the book.

In another place I am represented as referring to the Apostle Daniel 15th chapter! On one page I count about eleven broken sentences. Now to compress a speech of thirty minutes into eight or ten is bad enough if the given sentences were given correctly, but to compress it thus by clipping the sentences, and giving them by halves is an imposition. I here speak only of those sentences marked as broken, or unfinished. Besides these there are found in almost every paragraph sentences with a word or words omitted, so as to leave them without any force whatever, and in many instances to entirely change their meaning. This is the general character of the book. I will notice a few instances to show the truth of my remarks:

On page 14 I am reported as having said: "Exodus 34th, &c. It is a sign and a peculiar sign, especially to that people."

This expression is exactly the opposite of what I was endeavoring to show by the scriptures. Mr. S. had asserted that as a sign it was peculiar to that people. See page 12. I compared Ex. xxxi, (not "Ex. 34th,") with Gen. ii, and Ex. xx, to show that it was a sign because God rested on it when he made all things, and therefore was not peculiar to that people. The reporter being only able to catch part of the sentence re-constructed it according to the words he had taken without regard to the sense of the argument. And the revisers knew that I never put forth the above declaration. And this is true of other passages, literally "too numerous to mention."

The above quotation stands between two explanatory, or rather apologetic notes of the reporter. The first is this. ["Here the 14th chap. of Deut. is referred to, but I cannot see the application made of any passage taken from it.—Reporter."] This shows that in his haste he took down the passage he supposed I referred to, but failed to take my remark; but as he was mistaken in the passage he was not able to construct any report. Deut. xiv was not referred to, but Deut. iv, doubtless was.

After the above quoted sentence, is the following note: "[I cannot exactly get the connection of the passages here referred to, with the remarks made upon them. The verse is omitted and I am not at liberty to supply it.—Reporter.]" The "passages referred to" were, as before stated, Gen. ii; Ex. xx; and xxxi; to show that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, made at creation, and the Creator's sign or memorial. What idea can the reader get of my argument from such a report as the above? None whatever.

Our views in regard to the unity and completeness of the decalogue are too well known to need notice here. That it was a law is shown in Ex. xxiv, 12. That it, the law, was the ten commandments is shown by comparing the above with Ex. xix, xx; Deut. iv, 12, 13, &c. And I think I have never failed in speaking or writing on this point, to make myself understood. Let us now look at the report of this argument as follows:

"Exodus xxiv chap., 12th verse. Here God was going to call Moses up into the mount that he might give him a law. Then in Deut. iv chap. 12th and 13th verses. Now Moses is here referring back to past events,"—"saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice,"—"and mount sinai was altogether in smoke, &c., &c." Here was the burning of the mount that Moses referred to, "I am the Lord thy God, &c." The mountain burned with fire, &c. "[This is a jumble of quotations and remarks that I can't see head nor tail to! Guess he was trying to find something, and so kept reading and talking alternately to fill up the time.—Reporter.]"

This charitable comment

will be viewed in its true light, especially by those who, remembering the point in question, are aware of the fact that I could give the chapter and verse and repeat from memory every passage referring to the subject. The reporter shows himself in no enviable light. And this is the general course adopted by the publishers and reporter of this work. In the report of my speeches, there is an abundance of long dashes and unfinished sentences, as high as eleven on one page, with frequent sneering remarks by the reporter. On the contrary in one of Mr. Stephenson's speeches is the following:

"[Here Mr. Stephenson got to talking in double quick time, or at the rate of about two hundred words a minute, and therefore the report is imperfect, for which I am sorry.—Reporter.]"

No doubt his grief is deep; but notwithstanding its imperfection and the reporter's commiseration, not a dash or broken sentence is found in the whole speech!

I have stated that Mr. Stephenson, in that discussion, took new and unwarrantable positions; but I find that many of them were only used for that occasion—they do not appear in the book. Their omission, of course, would not be detected by the reader, inasmuch as my speeches are not reported. No one could tell by the pamphlet that he had explicitly declared that he would not be bound by any dictionary in the world. I will only call attention to an instance on page 92, in the "twenty-fourth speech." In this speech as spoken, he affirmed that "the law of sin and death," [Rom. viii, 2,] was the law of the ten commandments. He commented to show that that was the sense of the apostle's argument. He said that my argument tended to the same conclusion, and that Bro. Andrews considered it so in his pamphlet on the law. Bro. Andrews whispered to me that he should correct it. I advised him to produce the book and have Stephenson himself correct it, which he did. Of course his flourish over this "plain fact" looked rather silly when he had to confess there was nothing of it. I read Paul to show that the law of sin and death was the law in his members warring against the law of God. The following is the report of that matter:

"Look at his text in Romans by which he proves that the law of which Paul treats was the ten commandments.—When a thing is plainly stated it may not be gainsayed, viii, 2d. Once I was troubled to harmonize this with grammar. I happened to find Bro. Andrews' work and it threw some new light upon this point. The law of death and life are two different things. The wife of a man and the man whose wife she is, are two different things."

The reported speech then passes on to 2 Cor. without noticing the position he took in his spoken speech! and without intimating that he had to confess his misrepresentation.

But enough. To show all its falsities, would be to take it up page by page. But I do not feel that we have any reason to fear its influence, or even to regret that it is what it is. Seeing they have undertaken to get up a work of misrepresentation and falsehood, it is better for the cause of truth, which it is designed to oppose, that it should be so glaring as to expose its authors. In this respect it is complete.

I have noticed it at greater length than I intended, certainly greater than it deserves. And here I take leave of it, a final leave, I trust, unless my brethren shall think advisable to further expose it at a future time.

I cannot forbear the remark that we have learned a lesson in regard to the spirit and disposition of our opponents, in this matter. All can now see that nothing is too base for them to resort to in opposition to the truth; and that we cannot longer look for fairness or honesty from that source. It evidently becomes us to steadily adhere to and advocate the truth without any regard to their boastings or their falsehoods.

J. H. W.

Wauseon, Ohio, Aug. 10th, 1859.