Review and Herald, Vol. 35, No. 10. (2/22/1870)

Review and Herald

Feb 22, 1870

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

OUR FAITH AND HOPE;

By James White

Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We Do.

NUMBER THIRTEEN.—THE TIME.

BY ELDER JAMES WHITE.

7. The 2300 days. We will now go back to Verses 13, 14: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

Gabriel is next commanded to explain the vision to the prophet.

Verses 15–19: “And it came to pass when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood; and when he came I was afraid, and fell upon my face; but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; but he touched me and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation; for at the time appointed the end shall be.”

In the remaining verses of chap. 8, the angel explained the meaning of the ram, the goat, and the little horn. But he gave no explanation of the time in this chapter. The vision embraces Persia, Grecia, and Rome. And it is evident that 2300 literal days could not cover the duration of one of these kingdoms, much less all three of them. Hence the days must be symbolic, a day for a year, even as the beasts and horns are shown to be symbols. And it is a fact that a symbolic, or prophetic, day is one year. Num. 14: 34; Eze. 4: 5, 6. Hence the period is 2300 years.

But the angel did not explain the time in chap. 8. And, at the very close of the chapter, the prophet says, “I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.” It was the time alone that he did not understand, as all else had been explained in that chapter. But Gabriel did explain the time in chap. 9, so that in the first verse of chap. 10, he says that “he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.” This understanding, therefore, he did receive in chap. 9.

This chapter commences with the earnest, importunate prayer of the prophet, from the reading of which it is evident that he had so far misunderstood the vision of chap. 8, that he concluded that the 2300 days of treading under foot the sanctuary would terminate with the 70 years’ desolation of the city and sanctuary predicted by Jeremiah. Compare verses 1 and 2, with verses 16 and 17. Gabriel is now sent to undeceive him, and to complete the explanation of the vision. “While I was speaking in prayer,” says Daniel, “even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning [here he cites us back to chap. 8: 15, 16], being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter and consider the vision.” Verses 21–23.

Note these facts: (1) In verse 21, Daniel cites us to the vision of chap. 8. (2) In verse 22, Gabriel states that he had come to give Daniel skill and understanding. This being the object of Gabriel’s mission, Daniel, who, at the close of chapter 8, did not understand the vision, may, ere Gabriel leaves him, fully understand its import. (3) As Daniel testifies at the close of chap. 8, that none understood the vision, it is certain that the charge given to Gabriel, “Make this man to understand the vision,” still rested upon him. Hence it is that he tells Daniel, “I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding;” and in verse 23 requests him to “understand the matter, and to consider the vision.” This is undeniable proof that Gabriel’s mission in chap. 9, was for the purpose of explaining what he omitted in chap. 8. If any ask further evidence, the fact that Gabriel proceeds to explain the very point in question, must fully meet the demand.

Verses 24–27: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three-score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after three-score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war, desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.”

These facts should not be forgotten: (1) The word rendered “determined,” verses 24, literally signifies “cut off.” (2) “The vision” which Gabriel came to explain, contained the period of 2300 days; and in the explanation he tells us that “seventy weeks have been cut off” upon Jerusalem and the Jews. Therefore the seventy weeks are a part of the 2300 days. Hence the commencement of the seventy weeks is the date of the 2300 days. And the fact that the seventy weeks were fulfilled in 490 years, as all admit, is a demonstration that the 2300 days, from which this period of 490 days was cut off, are 2300 years.

The angel’s date of the seventy weeks next claims our attention. The date for the commencement of the weeks is thus given by Gabriel: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three-score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” Dan. 9: 25.

We present the following important testimony from the Advent Herald. It is a calm, dispassionate vindication of the dates, which establishes them beyond dispute. It was written in the year 1850, and consequently cannot be supposed to be given with a desire to prove that the days ended in 1844, as the Herald is not willing to admit that fact. Therefore it must be regarded as candid and honorable testimony to important facts. That it demolishes every view that has been put forth to re-adjust the 2300 days, no one, who can appreciate the force of the arguments presented, will fail to perceive.

“The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus, a clearly-ascertained date. From this period downward, we have the undisputed Canon of Ptolemy and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where inspired chronology leaves us, this Canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the Canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This Canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B. C. 457; and the accuracy of the Canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. The seventy weeks date from the going forth of a decree respecting the restoration of Jerusalem. There were no decrees between the seventh and twentieth years of Artaxerxes. Four hundred and ninety years, beginning with the seventh, must commence in B. C. 457, and end in A. D. 34. Commencing in the twentieth, they must commence in B. C. 444, and end in A. D. 47. As no event occurred in A. D. 47, to mark their termination, we cannot reckon from the twentieth; we must therefore look to the seventh of Artaxerxes. This date we cannot change from B. C. 457, without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy’s Canon. To do this, it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess-work. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A. D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion, in A. D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated.”—Advent Herald, March 2, 1850.

Sixty-nine of the seventy weeks were to extend to the Messiah the Prince. Sixty-nine weeks of years are 483 years. Beginning these with the seventh of Artaxerxes, they extend to A. D. 26–7. The word Messiah signifies the anointed. John 1: 41, margin. The Saviour was anointed at his baptism. Compare Acts 10: 37, 38; Mark 1: 10; Luke 4: 18.

After being thus anointed he went into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled.” Mark 1: 14, 15. The time then fulfilled could be no other period than the sixty-nine weeks, for that was to reach unto the Messiah, or the Anointed One. The sixty-nine weeks, reckoned from the seventh of Artaxerxes, as it is fixed by astronomical calculations, would end in A. D. 26–7; and A. D. 27 we find is the precise point of time when the Saviour must have been “about thirty years” of age, when he was baptized of John, and declared the time fulfilled.

The decree referred to in Dan. 9, from which the seventy weeks are dated, is that of the seventh of Artaxerxes. Ezra 7. Indeed, speaking properly, there was no decree in his twentieth year. For by turning to Neh. 2: 18, it will be seen that when Nehemiah arrived at Jerusalem he had nothing with which to incite the Jews to action, except to relate to them the good words which the king had spoken to him. Thus Nehemiah had mere verbal permission to restore the city of Jerusalem. But such verbal permission does not constitute a Persian decree. For in Dan. 6: 8, we learn that it must be a written document, signed by the king.

But thirteen years previous to Nehemiah’s permission to go up to Jerusalem, such a decree had been given to Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. Respecting this decree Prof. Whiting remarks:

“We are informed in Ezra 7: 11, ‘Now this is the copy of the letter that king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel.’ The letter then follows, written, not in Hebrew, but in Chaldee (or the Eastern Aramaic), the language then used at Babylon. At the 27th verse, the narrative proceeds in Hebrew. We are thus furnished with the original document, by virtue of which Ezra was authorized to ‘restore and build Jerusalem,’ or, in other words, by which he was clothed with power, not merely to erect walls or houses, but to regulate the affairs of his countrymen in general, to ‘set magistrates and judges which may judge all the people beyond the river.’”

That Ezra understood that power was conferred upon himself and upon the people of Israel, to rebuild the street and wall of Jerusalem is certain from his own testimony, recorded in chap. 9: 9: “For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.”

The seventh year of Artaxerxes, from which the decree is dated, is fixed beyond dispute in B. C. 457. The commencement of Christ’s ministry, in A. D. 27, was just 69 weeks, or 483 prophetic days, from the decree in B. C. 457. The crucifixion in the midst of the week occurred in the spring of A. D. 31, just three and a half years from the commencement of Christ’s ministry. The remaining three and a half years of the seventieth week, ended in the autumn of A. D. 34. Here the seventy weeks, which had been cut off upon the Jews, in which they were “to finish the transgression,” close with the Jewish Sanhedrin’s act of formally rejecting Christ by persecuting his disciples, and God gives the great apostle to the Gentiles his commission to them. Acts 9.

The first three and a half years of the seventieth week ended in the first Jewish month (April) in the spring of A. D. 31. The remaining three and a half years would therefore end in the seventh month, autumn, of A. D. 34.

Here ends the great period which Gabriel, in explaining the 2300 days to Daniel, tells him was cut off upon Jerusalem and the Jews. Its commencement, intermediate dates, and final termination, are unequivocally established. It remains then to notice this one grand fact: the first 490 years of the 2300 ended in the seventh month, autumn of A. D. 34. This period of 490 years being cut off from the 2300, a period of 1810 years remains. This period of 1810 years being added to the seventh month, autumn of A. D. 34, brings us to the seventh month, autumn of 1844.

Let us recur to the events connected with the great Advent movement of 1843 and 1844. Previous to the year 1843, the evidence on the going forth of the decree in B. C. 457 had been clearly and faithfully set forth. And as the period of 457 years before Christ, subtracted from the 2300, would leave but 1843 years after Christ, the end of the 2300 years was confidently expected in 1843. But if the 2300 years began with the commencement of B. C. 457, they would not end till the last day of A. D. 1843, as it would require all of 457, and all of 1843, to make 2300 full years.

But at the close of 1843, it was clearly seen that as the crucifixion occurred in the midst of the week, in the spring of A. D. 31, the remainder of the seventieth week, viz., three and a half years, would end in the autumn of A. D. 34. And as the seventy weeks, or 490 years, ended in the seventh month, autumn of A. D. 34, it is a settled point that the days began, not in the spring, with Ezra’s starting from Babylon, but in the autumn, with the commencement of the week at Jerusalem. Ezra 7. And this view that the days begin with the actual commencement of the work, is much strengthened by the fact that the first seven weeks, or 49 years, are manifestly allotted to the work of restoration in “troublous times.” And that period could only begin with the actual commencement of the work. Dan. 9: 25.

When it was seen that only 456 years and a fraction had expired before Christ, it was at once understood that 1843 years and a portion of 1844, sufficient to make up a full year when joined to that fraction, was required in order to make 2300 full years. In other words, the 2300 days in full time, would expire in the seventh month, 1844. And if we take into the account the fact that the midst of the seventieth week was the fourteenth day of the first month, and consequently the end of the seventy weeks must have been at a corresponding point in the seventh month, A. D. 34, we perceive at once that the remainder of the 2300 days would end about that point in the seventh month, 1844.

It was with this great fact before us, that the 2300 days of Daniel, which reached to the cleansing of the sanctuary, would terminate at that time, and also with the light of the types, that the high priest in “the example and shadow of heavenly things,” on the tenth day of the seventh month, entered within the second vail to cleanse the sanctuary, that we confidently expected the advent of our Redeemer in the seventh month, 1844. The prophecy said, “Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” The type said that at that season in the year the high priest should pass from the holy place of the earthly tabernacle to the most holy, to cleanse the sanctuary. Lev. 16.

With these facts before us we reasoned as follows: (1) The sanctuary is the earth: or the land of Palestine. (2) The cleansing of the sanctuary is the burning of the earth, or the purification of Palestine, at the coming of Christ. (3) And hence, we concluded that our great High Priest would leave the tabernacle of God in Heaven, and descend in flaming fire on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the autumn of 1844.

It is needless to say that we were painfully disappointed. And, though the man does not live who can overthrow the chronological argument, which terminates the 2300 days at that time, or meet the formidable array of evidence by which it is fortified and sustained, yet multitudes, without stopping to inquire whether our conceptions of the sanctuary and of its cleansing were correct or not, have openly denied the agency of Jehovah in the Advent movement, and have pronounced it the work of man.

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.

Christ, the Way, Truth, and Life

THE Bible, so little in bulk, like the five barley loaves and two fishes, what thousands upon thousands in every age it has fed! And what multitudes it will feed in every land of Christendom, till the end of time!

OUT of Christ as the Way, there is nothing but wandering; out of Christ as the Truth, nothing but error; out of Christ as the Life, nothing but eternal death. Look unto him and be saved.

I Will Give Nothing.

“There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.”—Prov. 11:24.

A minister, soliciting aid towards his chapel, waited upon an individual distinguished for wealth and benevolence. Approving the case, he presented to his minister a handsome donation, and turning to his three sons, who had witnessed the transaction, he advised them to imitate the example. “My dear boys,” said he, “you have heard the case; now what will you give?” One said “I will give all my pocket will furnish;” another observed, “I will give half that I have in my purse;” the third sternly remarked, “I will give nothing.”

Some years after, the minister had occasion to visit the same place, and recollecting the family he had called upon, he inquired into the actual position of the parties. He was informed that the generous father was dead; the youth who had so cheerfully given all his store was living in affluence; the son who had divided his pocket money was in comfortable circumstances; but the third, who had indignantly refused to assist, and haughtily declared he would give “nothing,” was so reduced as to be supported by the two brothers.

The incident furnishes a most suggestive comment upon the text which stands at the head of it: and there are plenty of parallel texts and facts.

Continue reading: The Order of Events in the Judgment