If, on the other hand, the gentleman means to be understood as insisting that the history of the church since the close of the canon of inspiration must be made to teach the faith which we hold as one which has always been entertained by the church, and therefore sound, we repudiate, in the name of Protestantism, this most pernicious view, and in all matters of practical duty, such as Sabbath-keeping, we decide according to the written word. To the first source (church history), the gentleman has appealed, and if every candid man and woman who has witnessed his effort has not been disgusted with the source to which he has applied, then we know of nothing which would be calculated to create in him this condition of mind.
With the summary, in which it is claimed that Christ, and the apostles, and the Holy Spirit, and the early church, did repeatedly honor the first day of the week, we will not weary the reader here. We have disproved every one of these points, and we trust to the intelligence of those whom we are addressing, in the confident belief that what has been said, in the absence of even an attempt at refutation, needs not to be reproduced here.
We had barely mentioned, in our original articles, that Seventh-day Adventists held to the opinion that the pope of Rome had been instrumental in bringing about the change of the Sabbath. No effort was made to develop the argument on that point, since we did not dare to presume that room would be granted for the perfecting of the work; in fact, what was said was uttered rather with a view to calling the attention of the curious to our published works upon that subject, than for any other purpose. Now, however, this point is made to assume a prominence which does not really belong to it, in an argument so largely doctrinal rather than historic.
With this, nevertheless, we have no fault to find. Nothing is more satisfactory than the awakening of a spirit of investigation on all branches of this great subject; at the same time, we submit that the attitude of the gentleman must be very unsatisfactory to himself, since he will readily perceive that to an opponent, chafing under a denial of the privilege of answering him in the columns of his own paper, this whole affair wears the aspect of an empty bravado. “Tell us,” says the editor, and he repeats his invitation again and again, “Whom did this little horn represent? Was it Antiochus? or the pope? If the latter, then how, and when, and where, did he bring about the transition?”
But we reply, Whom do you mean, sir, by the term, “us”? Truly, you would not require us to come to Philadelphia to enlighten you personally upon that point. Certainly, you are not particularly anxious that we should write a series of articles for the benefit of the readers of the Review, on a matter with which they are as familiar as they are with the history of their own country; but if, indeed, you had in your mind the readers of the Statesman, then it may be inquired again, How has it been possible for us to reach them, under the circumstances? since, throwing your forces behind the wall of your editorial prerogative, and closing against us the gate of possibility, you have shut us out from all access to them. Gladly would we have availed ourselves of the opportunity of doing that which we have been denied the privilege of attempting before the men, many of whom, we believe, would have been glad to follow this matter to the end; but as this cannot be done, a brief reply will be made here.
The first inquiry, relating, as it does, to the point whether Antiochus Epiphanes or the pope, was meant by the “little horn,” in the seventh of Daniel, need not consume time. It has been urged by some that the “little horn,” of Dan. 8:9, applied to the former character. We believe the papists still insist upon this; but the gentleman, upon reflection—if in what he has said he has confounded the two—will not seriously argue against the almost universal admission of Protestant writers, that the power brought to view in the seventh chapter of Daniel’s prophecy, is that of the papacy. In fact, reasoning as he does himself, most satisfactorily, that it could not arise until after the appearance of the original ten, which represented the final breaking up of the Roman Empire into ten parts, he more than intimates his personal conviction that it could not represent Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned one hundred and seventy-five years before Christ, since the Roman Empire was not partitioned among the barbarians who invaded it, until A. D. 483, more than six hundred years after the death of the Syrian king.
The following, from a standard authority, will serve to show an almost universal agreement on this subject; and with its presentation we pass to the investigation of questions more difficult, and more worthy of our reflection. “Among Protestant writers, this (‘the little horn,’ of Dan. 7:8) is considered to be the popedom.”—A. Clarke, Com. in loco.
“To none can this (‘He shall speak great words againt the Most High’) apply so well, and so fully, as to the popes of Rome.”—Idem, v. 25.
The real point of debate, as intimated above, is the question whether the Roman Catholic church has been instrumental in bringing about the change of the Sabbath. The gentleman errs in asserting that we have anywhere stated that such a change was brought about by any particular officer or council. This we have never urged, nor does it accord with the view held by us. The “little horn” represented, not one, merely, but a whole line of priest-kings, who were to extend from the time of their rise, to the Judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom of God. Of this line of rulers, it is stated—not that they should really succeed in bringing about an actual change in the requirements of the law of God—but that they should “think” to accomplish this end. It is also said that, for a time, times, and dividing of time (1260 years), the saints of God and the law of God should be delivered into their hands. Not, indeed, that God would forsake either his people or his law, utterly, but that, for the period in question, they should be permitted to pursue a course destructive to the one, and antagonistic to the other. In other words, that they should put to death the saints, and presume to alter the commandments of God.
These specifications are simply introduced by way of identification. It is not said that the power indicated should spring into life suddenly, and without a previous stage of development; nor is it declared that the principles which were to characterize it in its mature life should be wholly peculiar to itself. Other powers, such as pagan Rome, might have persecuted the people of God before the rise of the papacy, as they unquestionably did. Other men might have begun the work of tampering with the law of God, long before the days of the hierarchy, and might have prepared to its hands the materials necessary to the accomplishment of the final blasphemous work of the man of sin.