p. 77 | The Discussion at Manchester, N. H

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 31, 1865

The Discussion at Manchester, N. H.

By John Norton Loughborough

A FEW days since, the following statement in the World's Crisis of Nov. 1, 1864, relative to the discussion at Manchester, came under my notice, and as I consider it demands a few remarks, I give it below.

'A REQUEST.

"We have been earnestly requested to state whether the report of our discussion on the Sabbath question, with M. E. Cornell, at Manchester, N. H., as published by the friends at Battle Creek, Mich., is 'a true representation?'

"We would not charge the author of the report with untruth; but it will be noticed that our speeches, as reported, are only from one half to about one fourth as long as those of our opponent. It is well known that a person may truthfully report a part of what another said, and make him appear in very bad light; when, if he had only reported the rest that he said, the scales would be turned the other way. We claim that such was the case in the report of that discussion."

Eld. Grant says he will not charge us with untruth. That sounds clever. But, if we are guilty of what he says, namely, suppressing the truth to put him in a "bad light" before the people, it is in reality the worst kind of untruth. We would ask Eld. Grant to show what positions he took in that discussion which are suppressed, rather than make such a wholesale charge that what he said that was not reported would turn the scale the other way.

Again. If it is so easy to turn the scales "the other way" by what he said in that discussion that is not reported, why was it that he let the matter rest about eight months without endeavoring to show that he has been misrepresented? And why was it when he made the above statement that it was called forth by earnest request?

We will refer to a statement in the preface to the report of the discussion for a reason why Eld. Grant's speeches are so short: "My object was to take the principal arguments advanced, and the scriptures used on both sides, and to state the propositions and arguments, as far as I went, in the words of the speakers; and where authors were quoted, to state in the words of the authors the real point for which they were quoted. Many of the authors quoted by Eld. Grant, I had not access to in making the report, and could only give in the report of these authors, such statements as were taken at the time he was speaking. But in each case I have taken the statements that were considered as having a direct bearing on the question. The authors quoted by Eld. Cornell I have access to, and their statements are generally in full.

"I have endeavored to avoid repetition as much as possible, although there was, as is usual in discussions, much repetition. I have only repeated where the arguments were repeated for the sake of advancing some new idea upon them. These facts, with the consideration that Eld. Cornell is a more rapid speaker than Eld. Grant, will explain why some of Eld. Grant's speeches appear in the report so much shorter than his opponent's. I have labored, however, to state all his arguments, scriptures, and proofs accurately."

I would say still further in relation to the repetition, that Eld. Grant came to Bro. Cornell after the second evening of the debate, and wished the discussion to stop. He said if it continued any longer it would only be repetition as his principal arguments were out. It proved to be a fact, for in the third evening of the debate he repeated his argument entire on the covenants, scarcely advancing a new idea; and in his last speech of the discussion he only occupied ten of his thirty minutes.

If the Elder thinks some of his arguments have been suppressed which would turn the scale, it may be well for him to repeat them in the Crisis, and thereby convince some of his own brethren in Manchester, who attended the discussion and said he did not succeed in maintaining his position. We promise him that the said arguments, when produced, shall have a place in the Review.

If he really wishes the readers of the Crisis to know just how this matter stands, I presume he can have an opportunity to discuss it over again, either through the Crisis and Review, or else have a verbal discussion reported verbatim for the Crisis and Review. Then all will be prepared to judge how easily the arguments for the Sabbath are overturned.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

New Shoreham, R. I. Jan. 15, 1865.