Eld. Sanborn’s Defense

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 22, 1870

Eld. Sanborn’s Defense.

Though we do not publish matters of controversy from choice, yet it is plainly due to Bro. Sanborn, that we give his reply to the charges made against him in the Advent-Christian Times, by Elder O. R. Fassett. It is due to Elder Sanborn that we state the circumstances under which he went to his present field of labor, and of controversy. Last summer a special request was sent to this Office by a brother in Minnesota, intreating that a preacher should be sent to labor in La Crosse County, Wis., among his personal friends, where he had recently visited, and awakened an interest by the distribution of publications. In consequence of this request the General Conference Committee wrote Elder Sanborn a statement of the case as learned from the letter before mentioned, and they asked him to visit that place as soon as he could find opportunity so to do. He accordingly began to labor in Burnham Valley in October or November last. The Committee had no knowledge that an Advent church existed in that place.

As a controversy has arisen concerning the law of God, and also concerning matters personal to the parties, it becomes necessary to give the subject a place in the REVIEW. Two things are particularly worthy of notice: 1. The proposition for a discussion as made by our no-Sabbath friends, and the one made to them in the conclusion of this article by Elder Sanborn. The reader will judge which one is just and fair. 2. The fact that on questions of veracity in the conflicting statements, Elder S. has given the names of a large number of witnesses to confirm what he has said.

One word further and we place the whole matter in the hands of the reader. It relates to the mark of the beast. It is true that we hold the first-day Sabbath as an institution of the papal church; but we do not regard it as the mark of the beast till enforced as an act by the predicted action of the two-horned beast. We do not therefore teach that any person now has the mark of the beast.

In reading Elder Sanborn’s defense it will be seen that he quotes the entire article of Eld. Fassett, giving it in portions and replying to each. Here is the attack and the defense:

ELD. SANBORN’S REPLY TO ELD. FASSETT.

Having seen an article headed, “Advertisement,” in the Advent-Christian Times, of Jan. 4, 1870, by Eld. O. R. Fassett, first-day Adventist, in which both myself and the truth have been badly misrepresented, and one sentence in the advertisement declaring, “We do not desire to stop you from exercising free speech, or prevent people from hearing you;” I therefore ask the Advent-Christian Times to copy this reply, with the advertisement, which I give entire.

FASSETT. Be it known to all the churches that Eld. Sanborn, of the Seventh-day Adventists, came into Burnham Valley, Wis., in the absence of Eld. Hough, the pastor, while he was engaged in a protracted meeting north, and began a series of discourses in which he at first purposely withheld his real views—

REPLY. This I deny by saying that I purposely preached our real views on the promises of God in my first sermon, and in my second I preached on the perpetuity of the ten commandments.

FASSETT. Until he had for a time gained the sympathies of the people as a professed gospel minister, and then he began the preaching of the “law,” the “ten commandments,” and the keeping of the “seventh-day Sabbath;” enforcing it as the seal, and declaring that he was sent to seal the disciples,—

REPLY. We did show that the Sabbath commandment is the seal of the law, but did not say that we were sent to seal the disciples, but that the Lord would seal these truths upon the hearts of all his honest children, by his Spirit.

FASSETT. And affirming that those who keep the

first-day have the mark of the beast, and that they would be damned except they repent and keep the Sabbath.

REPLY. We did prove that the ten commandments are binding on the whole race of man, and that the transgression of any one of them is sin, and that if any person, after the Lord has given him clear light, then continues in sin, he will be lost.

FASSETT. Furthermore, that he would not preach to sinners until the church repented and kept the law, or were driven back into the world.

REPLY. We said we could not consistently invite sinners to repent while the church stood in the way, and that we believed the church would soon decide and act for, or against; then we could invite sinners. This was done when five of the church began to keep the Sabbath; then sinners who had never been converted, five in number, began to pray, and obey the Lord.

FASSETT. He also charged Eld. Hough publicly, and in his absence, and without the least occasion, or facts upon which to base his accusation, that before Eld. Hough came into Burnham Valley, the reapers and mowers laid still on Sunday; but since he came, and preached there was no day to keep, the people had gone to work on Sunday. Being informed of the untruthfulness of this statement, and that since Eld. Hough had preached in the Valley there had been a great change to the contrary, and for the better, and that the day had come to be observed, and remarkably respected by the whole community, and after being made to see and fully understand from every quarter that his charge was false, and a gross insult to a Christian minister and the community, he refused to make a public confession.

REPLY. We did say that since Eld. Hough preached his no-law and no-Sabbath sermon, people who formerly respected Sunday did not now respect it, which I still have the best of evidence for believing, as one of Bro. Fassett’s brethren was out hunting all day Sunday, and killed a deer the day of their Monthly Meeting; and last summer one of the deacons worked in his harvest on Sunday, and tried to get a worldly man to help him. When I came here, the Advent people generally thought, as the result of Eld. Hough’s no-Sabbath sermon, that there was no holy day.

FASSETT. Be it known that Mrs. Fassett, by the request of Eld. Hough and the church in Burnham Valley, and while her husband was absent, filled the appointments made for her, and preached the gospel as otherwise without an allusion to Eld. Sanborn, or a reference to his peculiar views. Yet he dogged her footsteps, and at the close of each of her discourses arose and gave notice that he would review them, and did so, in which he misrepresented her discourses, and garbled her statements, to which the community is witness.

REPLY. Mrs. Fassett did preach three discourses, in all of which she said that the ten commandment-law was holy, and good, and was given to show the world what sin is, and that it was all fulfilled in Christ, and that Christians are delivered from it; that it was the old covenant, and done away at the cross; but that it would follow the sinner to the judgment, and would have his life. That we garbled her statements or misrepresented her, we deny. How does Bro. Fassett know? neither he nor Mrs. Fassett heard the review; he must have written from hearsay.

FASSETT. Be it known that as Eld. Hough returned to fill his monthly appointment at “the supper” held in the Valley, being present on Saturday evening previous, to hear Eld. Sanborn preach, to a question propounded during the discourse by the preacher, “Are there any ready for the coming of Christ?” replied, “Yes; I am ready,” to which Eld. Sanborn said, “There is one stranger who says he is ready; but I don’t believe it. There is not one of you ready.” Thus did he judge and denounce the whole church. Let him read James 2:13; Matt. 7:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:5–7, where he is advertised.

REPLY. Eld. Hough was present to hear the last part of my discourse in which I had been showing the people that Jesus said that none but those who did the will of his Father could enter the kingdom, which he said was to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves; which John said was to keep God’s commandments. 1 John 5:2, 3. And, as Jesus had said, in Matt. 5:20, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven;” and, as he measured the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees by the ten-commandment rule, see Matt. 15:1–10; and, furthermore, as he had positively declared that the transgressors of his Father’s law should not enter the Father’s kingdom, I said to Bro. Hough I doubted his readiness for Jesus’ coming; and the following evening he gave me the best evidence to confirm my doubts, by saying in his sermon that “the ten commandments have no more to do with religion than polygamy, or the American slave law;” and, as Jesus tells us that we shall know the tree by its fruit, therefore we do not see that James 2:13; Matt. 7:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:5–7, referred to above, condemn us for what we know of Elds. Hough and Fassett.

FASSETT. Be it known that one week from the time of “the supper” above mentioned, on Lord’s day evening, after Eld. Sanborn had finished his discourse, Bro. Bolles read the following challenge from Eld. Hough:

MR. SANBORN—Dear Sir: You are laboring to convince people that the old Jewish sabbath is binding now, with other doctrines peculiar to your people, and you are upbraiding in your denunciations against us as having the mark of the beast (which you call keeping the first-day) and repeating our unreadiness for the coming Saviour. And you do not allow us the right of judgment: when we affirm we are ready, you declare you do not believe it. Now we do not desire to stop you from exercising free speech, or prevent people from hearing you; but we do desire to expose your errors before the public by having the subject discussed. Will you choose one outside of our faith, and we will select another, and they a third, and they shall form a board of moderators, and shall decide who has the argument. The discussion shall be held in the White School House, Burn’s Valley, commencing Monday evening, Dec. 20, to be conducted in the following manner: Each speaker to occupy twenty minutes at a time, and speak four times apiece, each evening, and continue until the differences in doctrine are discussed. The points of doctrine to be discussed being as follows:

Does the New Covenant teach that the seventh-day Sabbath is binding on Christians?
Do the Scriptures teach that keeping the first day is the mark of the beast?
Do the Scriptures teach that the sanctuary spoken of in Dan. 8:14, is in Heaven?
Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus left the mediatorial seat in A. D. 1844 and commenced to cleanse the sanctuary?

To these several questions you affirm, we deny. Yours with due respect, P. W. HOUGH. Mendora, Wis., Nov. 21.

Eld. Sanborn refused to accept this challenge. He would arrange to preach on alternate evenings only with Eld. Hough. To this arrangement Eld. Hough would not agree, knowing the character of his antagonist, and his policy in dissembling, and that like the magicians and sorcerers of Chaldea, in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, he “would gain the time.” Dan. 2:8.

REPLY. 1. We took an expression of the congregation, and found that a large majority wanted us to preach on alternate evenings. This is the main reason why we urged this mode of investigation. 2. We would not agree to discuss such unfair propositions with any man; as some of the things stated in the propositions we never believed nor preached.

FASSETT. Be it known that on the arrival of the writer, and after the departure of Eld. Hough, as I filled several appointments made for me by the church, at the close of each, Eld. Sanborn made the statement that he would “review Bro. Fassett, and show his great mistakes,” or similar language. To this I protested before the whole assembly, and addressed Eld. Sanborn, reasoning with him, and remarking that he did this for effect, and I then pressed him before all to a fair and honorable discussion either with Eld. Hough who had sent him a challenge, or myself, who stood ready for the work, and stated that this was what the church and community wanted. Again he refused a discussion, and would merely commit himself to a review after a night and a day’s delay and chance for a reply. But we did not want to give him this time to recover his forces after his defeat, and arrange for a new battle by misrepresenting our views before another audience, and dissemble and gloss in his interpretations of the Scriptures; for we know as was sung by one of old: “You have the art to gloss the foulest cause.”

REPLY. Thank you, Bro. Fassett, for this manifestation of your brotherly love toward me; and if you will look in Matt. 24:49, which speaks of the evil servant smiting his fellow-servants, you will see, I think, what side you stand upon.

FASSETT. We were determined to “fight it out on this line” without giving him the opportunity for a recovery when honorably and fairly defeated in the argument from the Scriptures. In this brief history in the experience of Eld. Sanborn, he has found the truthfulness of the scripture: “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him.” Prov. 18:17. I am happy to state that the church in Burnham Valley stands fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and are not disposed to be entangled with the yoke of bondage.

REPLY. How Bro. Fassett could make the above statement in regard to the church, as he calls keeping the Sabbath a yoke of bondage, I know not; because he knew before writing the above advertisement, that several members of the church he refers to, were keeping the Sabbath, and are still; but perhaps he did not think of gloss when he wrote that statement.

FASSETT. She will come out of her ordeal better qualified to defend the faith against other adversaries. I am glad to know that she is not a whit behind other churches in the knowledge of the word. Mormons and other errorists, she is apprised, are on their way into this valley and region. Wolves prowl around the sheepfold. The perils to the entire flock of God everywhere increase. The Lord preserve his people, and may we not be ignorant of Satan’s devices. O. R. FASSETT.

REPLY. How the church will come out of the ordeal to which he refers, the future will tell. But as he is determined to fight it out in a discussion, I propose to give him or Bro. Hough, a chance at what he calls a fight. I therefore offer to discuss with either one of them the following proposition:

Resolved, That the Bible teaches that the seventh-day Sabbath was made at creation, and is binding on Jew and Gentile. Eld. I. Sanborn affirms, Eld. Hough or Fassett denies. Resolved, That the Bible teaches that the first day of the week, or Sunday, is the Lord’s day; and that the Lord’s people should keep it in commemoration of his resurrection. Eld. Hough or Fassett affirms, Eld. I. Sanborn denies.

The discussion to be held in Mendora, La Crosse Co., Wis., as soon as the disputants can make the preliminary arrangements. The Lord willing, I shall be in Mendora between the middle and last of June next, ready for the work, if they accept the above propositions, which fully and honorably cover the real difference of faith between us on the Sabbath question. ISAAC SANBORN.

TESTIMONIAL.

Be it known unto all the churches that we, the undersigned witnesses, are residents of Burns Valley, Wis., and having attended Eld. Sanborn’s meetings, and also those of Elders Hough and Fassett and Mrs. Fassett, and having read Eld. Fassett’s advertisement, we consider it a one-sided, gross misrepresentation; and we believe Eld. Sanborn’s reply to be a fair and honorable statement of facts, as we understand them. Joseph Hanton, sen., John Clarke, J. T. Bradley, A. R. Benzia, O. Davenport, Clarence Wood, W. L. Spencer, C. Hurlburt, Hiram Lanphear, M. E. Lanphear, Elizabeth Bradley, Jane A. Wood, Julia E. Spencer, Julia A. Lanphear, Eliza Hanton, M. Lanphear.