EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
HOW THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH WERE LAID.
In the original appointment of the Sabbath, by the sanctification of the seventh day, God did in no wise connect that institution with the fifteenth day of Abib. That month is, indeed, the first month of the Jewish sacred year ordained in Ex. 12, but is the seventh month of the civil year, as reckoned from creation. But when God made the fifteenth of Abib memorable by the Exodus, then, “by divine appointment,” says Eld. P., he made the Sabbath to coincide with that day, and the Sabbath, thus changed, “was to be the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews.” Pages 136, 137. But the passage of the Red Sea was as fatal to this new Sabbath as it was to Pharaoh and his host. The signal triumph of the people of God on that auspicious morning, made it necessary to change the Sabbath again. When they set out from Egypt they had a new Sabbath, viz., the fifteenth of Abib, and this, in the purpose of God, “was to be the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews.” But in three days’ time, this new day, “to be much observed unto the Lord,” was succeeded by another even more memorable. For when they had crossed the Red Sea, and all their enemies had been drowned therein, they enjoyed a new day of rest upon its east shore. And in five weeks’ time, viz., at the first day on which the manna ceased in the wilderness of Sin, this third edition of the Sabbath became the fully “established” weekly rest of the Israelites. Pages 140–143. This second change of the Sabbath was more fortunate than was the first. For whereas the first change, though designed to establish a “regular weekly Sabbath” for the Jews, did actually last only till the third day, this second one was able to hold its own till the resurrection of Christ, a period of some fifteen hundred years. Why the Sabbath was not changed from creation to the Exodus, it is hard to tell, seeing it was so light a thing to change it at that time. The day of Enoch’s translation, the day that Noah entered the ark, the day that he left it, and the day that Israel went down into Egypt, were all first-class opportunities for changing the day of the Sabbath. It is true that changing the Sabbath on each shore of the Red Sea, with only three days at most between the changes, seems rather frequent; but why after this it should go some fifteen hundred years before being changed again, is something which needs an explanation. Why not change it when the law was given at Sinai? And why not also change it when Israel entered Canaan? There was an excellent opportunity for another change of the Sabbath at the dedication of the temple; for another at the translation of Elijah; and for still another when the angel of God announced the birth of Christ; and even for one more when the Savior died on the cross, as this would have allowed till the third day before it would require to be changed again in order to commemorate his resurrection. And finally, why not change it again when he ascended into Heaven from the mount of Olives at the end of the forty days? Three changes of the Sabbath are, however, quite enough. But why should there be even one of them? Because, say those who believe in these changes, other events besides creation need to be commemorated. But is it the case that when the Lord had established the seventh day of the week as the memorial of his creative work, he had exhausted his capacity to frame memorials, and so when other works were wrought by him that needed commemoration, he could only fall back upon the idea of a rest day, and so change over and over the one memorial which he set up in the beginning? Was it not the passover rather than a change of the Sabbath that commemorated the deliverance out of Egypt? Is not the Lord’s supper a better memorial of the crucifixion of Christ than the keeping of Friday as a Sabbath would be? And is not burial with Christ in baptism a fitter memorial of the resurrection of Christ than abstinence from labor on Sunday, especially when the first is expressly commanded, and the other is not even mentioned? In view of the several alleged changes in the Sabbath, we do not wonder that Eld. P. should contend so earnestly that God has never commanded the observance of the seventh day of the week, but only that of the seventh day after six days of labor. Yet how he could secure even such a seventh day as this on the various occasions of changing the Sabbath, it would be hard to say. One assurance, however, he gives, to the effect that no matter how many changes of the Sabbath, the institution is always the same. This must be especially encouraging to those who keep it as changed last of all. Thus he says: “The Sabbath can be a perpetual institution, though the day be changed as often as it may be God’s order to do so; and still the Sabbath as an institution remain the same.” p. 122.
The several alleged changes of the Sabbath in the Old Testament, are chiefly valuable to Eld. P. in helping to prove that it is no strange nor impossible thing that it should be changed at the resurrection of Christ. But they must not be construed to prove that the change last made can ever be superseded by another. This last change which gives existence to what he calls the Christian Sabbath, is of so much importance that he labors with great pains to lay the foundation deep and strong. But when a new building is to be erected on the site of one that has long occupied the ground, the first thing to be done is to remove the existing edifice. And so it is that the first act preparatory to laying the foundation of the first-day Sabbath is to remove the seventh-day Sabbath out of the way. Yet the task undertaken by Eld. P. is full of perplexity and embarrassment. He wishes to perpetuate the Sabbath which was made for man and yet is fully purposed to abrogate the seventh-day Sabbath. The difficulties of the undertaking were considered in the fifth article of this series. The Sabbath which was made for man, dates from the beginning, and was made by the act of sanctification recorded in Gen. 2: 3, as Eld. P. teaches on page 143. To have a Sabbath and yet not to have this one, is to have that which is only a counterfeit. Eld. P. does not at all admire the Sabbath which comes upon the seventh day of the week. And so he teaches that it is ALWAYS the Sabbath and never a specified day of the week that God sanctified. p. 5. Yet there are only two texts that record this act of sanctification; and Eld. P. teaches that the first one of these (Gen. 2: 3), pertains to the definite seventh day of the week (pages 5, 119); and it is obvious to every person that the act of sanctification recorded in the other text (Ex. 20: 11), is identical with that recorded in the first, and even Eld. P. who says that the sanctification of Ex. 20: 11 pertains to the seventh day after six days of labor, and that it was not the seventh day of the week, on the same page asserts that it was such day, once as a probability, and once as a certainty. p. 119. The evidence in the case, does, therefore, prove, even on Eld. P.’s own showing, that the act whereby God made the Sabbath for man was that of sanctifying the definite seventh day of the week. But “yea and nay” concerning the same thing, oftener occurs in the writings of Eld. P. than in those of St. Paul. 2 Cor. 1: 18. And so, notwithstanding what he has said relative to the sanctification of the definite seventh day, whereby the Sabbath was made for man, he thus defines that original Sabbath: “The Sabbath which was ‘made for man,’ was the seventh day following six days of labor.” p. 121.
With the aid of this definition we can understand his sixth question where he shows how that the first day can really be the original Sabbath. Thus he lays open the case: “If, then, it is the Sabbath [the seventh day following six days of labor, page 121,] that was made for man, and not the seventh day of the week, are not Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being, really, ‘the seventh day’ following six days of labor?”
So here we have the secret laid open. God sanctified the seventh day preceded by six days of labor. The first day of the week is exactly such a seventh day as that. Therefore, Christians keep the original Sabbath in observing the first day of the week. But every day of the week is the seventh day after six days of labor. If, therefore, we take up some other day of the week besides the seventh, and maintain that this other day of the week is the seventh day, not because it is such in God’s cycle, the week, but simply because it has been preceded by six days of labor, and thereupon claim that it is the very day which God sanctified, and therefore the true Sabbath, we must do it upon the ground that God sanctified as the seventh day each and all the days of the week. And it must also be the case that he thereupon said to man: “Here are seven sanctified days; take your choice among them, for they are all alike. You may work on any six of them provided you will keep the seventh day of the series you thus establish.” If this is Eld. P.’s view of the case, we can understand why he so many times insists that the Sabbath is simply the seventh day after six days of labor, “the particular day of the week not specified.” See pages 5, 121, etc. There is no occasion to specify the day, but full liberty to choose. And we can now better understand why at the very opening of his first chapter he should quote and apply to the subject of the Sabbath the words of Paul in Rom. 14: 5, 6. “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” These words are much used by the no-Sabbath people, to prove that no sacred time exists in this dispensation. For this reason they may be hereafter examined in this investigation. But as Eld. P. is a staunch Sabbatarian of the first-day order, the question arises, How could he apply them to the subject of the weekly Sabbath? Perhaps we have now an answer. All days are indeed alike; not because there is no sacred time, but because every day has been sanctified. God did not, it seems, sanctify them all with the intent that we should any one of us keep them all; but with the purpose that we should take our choice among them, and that choose which we would we should be sure to get a sanctified day. But if Eld. P. protests that this is not his view of the case, and that he does not hold to breaking six Sabbaths in order to keep one; and that so costly an arrangement has no place in his creed, then we inquire still further into the matter. He may say that the sanctification of the seventh day after six days of labor is not true in the case of the seven days in general, and is only true in the case of the first day of the week in particular. Very well. Let us see what follows: The seventh day after six days of labor is the definite first day of the week. 1. Then God did sanctify the first day of the week and no other day.
2. As this sanctification was at the beginning, the first day of the week has been the true Sabbath from that time.
3. And hence, the seventh-day Sabbath was, for the whole period of its existence, an unauthorized and fraudulent Sabbath, which usurped and held the place of the true Sabbath, the first day of the week, during the whole period of the Old Testament.
4. And finally, there never was a really indefinite seventh-day Sabbath; for however contradictory it may seem, when God sanctified the seventh day, he meant the first day of the week and nothing else. One of three positions must be taken by Eld. P.:
1. God sanctified the definite seventh day of the week, or,
2. He sanctified the indefinite seventh day after six days of labor, or,
3. He sanctified both the definite and the indefinite seventh days. 1. But if he sanctified the definite seventh day of the week, then that day, and no other, was by him set apart to be his holy Sabbath. But this position, though strictly true, and every way reasonable, will never do for Eld. P. For he wishes to keep the Sabbath, but is not willing to keep the seventh day of the week; and he wishes to abolish the seventh-day Sabbath, but to preserve the Sabbath made for man at the beginning. 2. But if God did not sanctify the definite seventh day, but merely the seventh day after six days of labor, then he must have sanctified (a) all the seven days of the week, so that whatever six days of the week men should labor, the next day would be a Sabbath; or (b) he sanctified as the seventh day after six days of labor, the first day of the week alone, so that if men do not keep that day, they do not keep the seventh day after six days of labor which God hallowed for man. But either of these two views involves great absurdities. Thus:
(a) If he sanctifies all seven of the days of the week, so that though men choose at random they will never fail to get a Sabbath, it will follow that he made seven Sabbaths in order to establish one among mankind; and that he freely allows men to break six Sabbaths every week on condition that they keep the remaining day, whichever it may be, as his Sabbath.
(b) But if he sanctified as the indefinite seventh day after six days of labor, the definite first day of the week alone, then that day and no other has been the Sabbath of the Lord from the beginning. 3. If, however, his act of sanctification embraced both the definite seventh day, and the indefinite one also, then there were two weekly Sabbaths from the beginning. And with this supply it was easy for the Lord to abolish the poorer one, the definite seventh-day Sabbath, and to leave in force the better one, the indefinite seventh-day Sabbath. And it is easy enough to see which day of the week would prove to be the indefinite seventh day. For if the sanctification of this kind of a seventh day made Sabbaths of every day in the week, then the first day is surely a Sabbath; and if Sunday alone is the seventh day after six days of labor, then there can be no mistake that it is the true Sabbath. It is the great study of Eld. P. to connect his first-day Sabbath with that Sabbath which was made for men at the beginning, and to have it stand as a continuation of that institution, while at the same time he shall effectually abolish that Sabbath which for four thousand years did certainly come upon the seventh day of the week. It is a difficult task. We have tried hard to find by what method he could think to accomplish it; and we find the task practicable provided the following propositions are true: 1. That God did not sanctify the definite seventh day; and hence that day was a usurper while it did have the ground as the Sabbath, and deserved to be abolished—if a thing can be abolished that never was enacted.
2. That he did sanctify as the Sabbath an indefinite seventh day after six days of labor; to secure which he either made every day into a Sabbath, and of course Sunday was one of these Sabbaths thus made at the beginning, or, what is better still, this indefinite seventh day after six days of labor is the definite first day of the week, in which case Sunday is the very day originally hallowed for the Sabbath. These propositions, as we have seen, involve very great absurdities, and yet they are in substance precisely what Eld. P. sets forth in the following words: 1. “The Sabbath which was made for man was the seventh day following six days of labor.” p. 121.
2. “If, then, it is the Sabbath that was made for man and not the seventh day of the week, are not Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really ‘the seventh’ day following six days of labor?” p. 5. Were these declarations true, the first-day Sabbath would be a divine institution by virtue of the sanctification recorded in Gen. 2: 3. He might then well reason thus: “The Sabbath which was ‘made for man’ was the seventh day following six days of labor. Hence the ‘law’ which is written in the heart, can, and does, direct to the first day of sabbaton (‘week’) as the Sabbath now ‘for man,’ and not the seventh day of sabbaton.” p. 121.
That is to say God ordained an indefinite seventh day, and the first day of the week is just such a seventh day; and he did not ordain the definite seventh day, which, as a consequence, never was the Sabbath. Hence when he says, “The law which is written in the heart can and does direct to the first day of sabbaton (‘week’) as the Sabbath now ‘for man’ and not the seventh day of sabbaton,” he does only half state the case. The law, whether on the heart or in the Scriptures (if Eld. P.’s proposition here stated is correct), not merely makes the first day now the Sabbath, but on the ground here taken makes it always to have been such. And Eld. P. adds: “Therefore, it is clearly proved that the seventh day Sabbath of the old ‘dispensation of Death’ is ‘done away;’ and the first day Sabbath of the dispensation of the Spirit has been virtually in force since the resurrection of Christ.” p. 121.
Not exactly so, if your premises are good. Say this rather: “It is clearly proved that the seventh-day Sabbath of the old dispensation of Death never was in force; and the first-day Sabbath of the dispensation of the Spirit is the Sabbath of the Lord by virtue of the original act of institution, whereby God made the Sabbath for mankind.” But though Eld. P. lays down premises which are designed to bring in the first day Sabbath by virtue of the original act of institution, and though these premises, if correct, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the first day of the week is not merely a continuation of the original Sabbath, but that it is the original Sabbath itself, while in truth the seventh day of the week never was obligatory, yet we shall soon discover that he does not regard the sacredness of the first day of the week as in any sense established by the original sanctification of the seventh day. For after all the ways in which he does violence to the words of inspiration in turning the definite seventh day into an indefinite seventh day after six days of labor, in order thereby to bring in Sunday under the false pretence that it is the seventh day, he finally abandons the original sanctification to the definite seventh day, and virtually confesses that he has a new and distinct institution to establish, he undertakes to get up such a sanctification of the first day in the New Testament as the seventh day had in the old. Thus he sets forth the case: “CHRIST THUS SANCTIFIETH THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. Some deny that the first day of the week was ever ‘sanctified;’ but in Heb. 4: 10 we have the proof that it was sanctified. For it is there said: ‘He (Christ) also hath ceased from his own work as God did from his.’ How did God rest from his work? Answer. He sanctified the day on which he rested ‘BECAUSE that in it he HAD RESTED.’ Hence, it follows that Christ must have sanctified the first day, ‘BECAUSE that in it he HAD RESTED;’ or he could not have rested as God did, on a sanctified day, unless he had sanctified the first day as God had sanctified the seventh.” p. 131.
At a later place in his book he gives the same again as follows: “But let us compare this with Heb. 4: 10: ‘He (Christ) also hath ceased from his own work, as God did from his.’
“1. Did God ‘rest’ on the ‘seventh day’? Then did Christ ‘rest’ on the first day as God did from his on the seventh?”
“2. Did God ‘bless’ the seventh day on which he ‘rested?’ On Heb. 4: 10 Boothroyd says:
“ ‘For he who,’ For he, Christ the Lord, who both entered, etc. He hath rested from his work of redemption, from his trials and sufferings, as God did from his works of creation, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father, enjoying rest in Heaven, and the highest satisfaction in the work he has accomplished. For the sense given, see Owen and Wardlaw.’
“Then must Christ have ‘blessed’ the ‘first day,’ if he rested as God rested—‘because’ that in it ‘he had rested;’ therefore he (Christ) ‘blessed’ it [the first day] as God did the seventh.
“2. ‘Did God ‘sanctify’ the seventh day? Then must Christ have ‘sanctified’ the ‘first day,’ or he could not have rested on a sanctified day as God did, unless he had sanctified the day. And all the other assertions under this head will compare with the above, as will be seen by any one who will carefully examine this matter.” Pages 303, 304.
The emphasis in these quotations is that of Eld. P., as it is indeed in that of all the regular quotations from him. We have now fairly discovered the real foundations of the first-day Sabbath. Look at them: 1. Christ rested from the work of redemption on the first day of the week.
2. Christ blessed the first day of the week because that in it he had rested.
3. Christ sanctified the first day of the week, that is, he set it apart, or appointed it, to a holy use because that in it he had rested. The first-day Sabbath rests upon a very firm foundation if we can believe Eld. P. And he establishes all this by Heb. 4: 10. But observe his doctrine: 1. It is God who rested in Gen. 2: 3; but it is Christ who rested in Heb. 4: 10.
2. The work which God had finished was creation; that which Christ had finished was redemption.
3. The day sanctified by God was the day on which he rested, the last day of the cycle of seven; that day which Christ sanctified is the day on which he rested at his resurrection; the first day of the cycle of seven.
4. The two acts of sanctification were more than four thousand years apart. The two acts of sanctification are, therefore, in every respect entirely distinct. 1. As to who wrought them. 2. As to the things to be commemorated. 3. As to the days set apart. 4. As to the time when each act of sanctification was wrought. Very well. Then what good has there been in all Eld. P.’s effort to show that God sanctified an indefinite seventh day, and that Sunday being just that kind of a seventh day is certainly the Sabbath? Nothing is plainer than that Eld. P. himself has no real faith that Sunday is the Sabbath by virtue of the act of sanctification in Gen. 2: 3; for if he were satisfied that this is so, he would not need to set it up as a Sabbath by having Christ sanctify it. If Sunday were really a continuation of the original institution, there would be no need to dig up the foundations of the ancient Sabbath in order to lay other foundations for the Sunday Sabbath. What is the use to labor so hard for an indefinite seventh-day Sabbath, under the mantle of which the first day of the week could claim Sabbatic honors, and yet in the end be constrained to acknowledge that the definite seventh day alone was the real subject of that sanctification, and that in order for Sunday to become a Sabbath it must itself be sanctified, for reasons that are only true in its own case if true at all? Eld. P. in the present quotations plainly teaches that God sanctified that day of the week on which he rested; he also teaches that Christ sanctified that day on which he arose from the dead. The last day of the week was therefore once the Sabbath; and now the first day goes through the same process which made a Sabbath of the last. These two are termed by Eld. P. “the seventh-day Sabbath,” and “the first-day Sabbath.” And here is their standing as given by himself: “Although the seventh-day Sabbath is abrogated, yet the first-day Sabbath is binding.” p. 3.
The first-day Sabbath is in every respect an institution distinct from the original Sabbath. It does not exist in consequence of the rest, blessing, and sanctification, which pertain to the seventh day, but because of the rest, blessing, and sanctification, which pertain to itself alone. The day ordained by the first three of these acts is abrogated; the day established by the last three has the ground. And now, observe the conclusion necessarily established by these facts: The first-day Sabbath cannot claim that it has been sanctified as the day of the Creator’s rest, and that it has been also sanctified as the day of Christ’s resurrection. Its claim to the first of these acts of sanctification is a manifest and palpable fraud. But were its claim to the first act genuine, it would forbid the second act of sanctification inasmuch as that cannot be set apart to a holy use which is already thus set apart. In attempting therefore to establish itself upon the second of these two sanctifications, as upon a solid foundation, it of necessity abandons the first, and abrogates that Sabbath which was founded upon it. And so we have the original institution abrogated, and its very foundation removed in order to establish in their place a new foundation and erect thereon a new institution styling itself “the first-day Sabbath.” We are glad to witness this effort to establish the first-day Sabbath upon a foundation of its own; for it compels those who engage in it to relinquish the fraudulent possession of that foundation which was laid by the Almighty for the seventh-day Sabbath at the beginning. Before testing the solidity of this new foundation, however, we propose two questions. 1. According to some parts of Eld. P.’s book, heretofore examined, when God made the Sabbath he sanctified the definite seventh day of the week. Pages 5, 143. But one of these very statements confines that sanctification to the first week of time and allows it to extend no further. Pages 5, 119. As Eld. P. contends for a strict analogy between the sanctification of the seventh day and that of the first, must it not be the case that when Christ sanctified the first day of the week, that sanctification was confined to that one week in which Christ arose, and that it did not affect another first day of the week but that one? 2. But according to other statements of his book, heretofore considered, God never did sanctify the seventh day of the week, but he sanctified the Sabbath, which is simply the seventh day after six days of labor. Pages 5, 121. Now, according to Eld. P.’s strict analogy, must it not be true that Christ did not sanctify the first day of the week, but that he did sanctify the Christian Sabbath which is simply the first day in any seven, the last six of which are devoted to labor? Leaving Eld. P. to answer these questions, we now examine the foundations of his new Sabbath. It is plain that if the first day of the week has been consecrated by Christ in resting upon, blessing, and sanctifying, that day, then the like acts performed at the beginning in behalf of the seventh day are effectually nullified; for we have not two sanctified rest days in every week, each of which has six days of labor preceding or succeeding it, nor have we one day sanctified twice over. The two acts are absolutely incapable of being applied to the same day. 1. Because what is true of the one day is not true of the other. 2. Because one act of consecration would not only suffice, but it would make the second impossible; for that cannot be set apart to a holy use which is already thus consecrated. The first day of the week no longer attempting to stand on the foundation of the seventh day, asserts that it has one of its own, laid for it, indeed, upon the tearing up of that which pertained to the seventh day, but laid by the same process as was that of the seventh day. The text in which the first-day foundation is said to be laid is Heb. 4: 10. We quote it with the verse which precedes, and that which follows: Heb. 4: 9. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”
10. “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his.”
11. “Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Concerning verse 10, Eld. P. teaches:
1. That Christ is intended by the phrase “he that is entered into his rest.”
2. That Christ finished the work of redemption at his resurrection, and entered upon his rest on the first day of the week, even as God the Father finished the work of creation in six days and entered upon his rest on the seventh day.
3. That as God blessed the seventh day on which he rested from the work of creation, so Christ blessed the first day of the week on which he rested from the work of redemption.
4. Moreover as God sanctified, that is, set apart to a holy use, the day of his rest, so Christ did also sanctify or set apart his rest day for that purpose. 1. If the first proposition be false, all the rest are false also; and they may be false even if this one were true. Is it then true that Christ is intended by the words “he that is entered into his rest?” The proof is drawn from three things: 1. The use of the pronoun in the singular number, “he that is entered,” etc. 2. The use of the present and the perfect tense, “is entered” and “hath ceased.” 3. From the cessation of labor being compared to that of God’s. But these are really no reasons at all; for, 1. The use of the singular pronoun “he,” instead of the plural “they,” for the whole body of God’s people, is very common in the Bible. Thus, in words very perfectly adapted to illustrate Heb. 4: 10, Peter says: “For he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men,” etc. 1 Pet. 4: 1, 2. Here “he” represents all Christians. Again, see Rom. 6: 7, 8, “For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” Here the “he” of verse 7 means the same as the “we” of verse 8. These illustrations are to the point, and they might be greatly multiplied. 2. The use of the present, “is entered,” and of the perfect, “hath ceased,” is no proof that Christ is intended; for, (a) the perfect, “we which have believed,” and the present, “do enter into rest,” is in verse 3 applied to all believers, though the believing is not past, but present, and the entering into rest is not present, but future. And thus, in verse 10, the present and the past tense are put for the future much as one tense is put for another in verse 3. 3. That this entrance into rest has something in it like that of God’s entrance thereinto from his creative work, is what the apostle sets forth in various forms of expression concerning all the people of God in verses 1–11. So much for the proof that the “he” of Heb. 4: 10 refers to Christ. But on the other hand observe, 1. That Christ cannot be the antecedent of the pronoun “he” in verse 10, for he is not even alluded to in any of the previous verses of this chapter. 2. That the rest remaining for believers is the theme of verse 9. And further, that verse 10 is connected with verse 9 by the conjunction “for,” showing that he who enters into rest in verse 10 stands as the representative of all believers referred to in verse 9. And verse 11 which bids us labor to enter into that rest, is connected with verse 10 by the word “therefore,” showing that the three verses are inseparably linked together, and that they relate not to Christ’s resting upon the first day of the week, but to the entrance of the whole company of the redeemed into the rest that remains for the people of God. Just read the three verses 9–11 with care. But if Eld. P. is right, verse 10 relates to Christ’s rest upon the first day of the week; and verse 11 bids us to enter into that rest, i. e. to enter into the keeping of the first-day Sabbath! Eld. P., in the first sentence of his preface, informs us that he spent some three years in the preparation of his “First-Day Sabbath;” he has certainly labored to show that there is such an institution, and in that respect has done his part162to have men enter into this rest; but whether he has honored God by his effort is left for the reader to judge. His first deduction from Heb. 4: 10 is therefore, as we have seen, certainly false. If this one be false, the others are such of necessity. But we will take the next. 2. That Christ finished the work of redemption at his resurrection, and entered upon his rest on the first day of the week, even as God the Father finished the work of creation in six days and entered upon his rest on the seventh day. Here are two false statements for which there is not even the show of evidence. 1. That Christ finished the work of redemption at his resurrection. 2. That he entered upon his rest on the first day of the week. 1. There is no evidence that Christ finished the work of redemption at his resurrection, unless the following from Eld. P. can be called such: “But when did Christ finish his work? was it on the cross? or when he arose from the dead? See 2 Tim. 1: 10. ‘But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who both abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.’ Here, then, was when his work of redemption was completed; when he brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, on the first day of the week. And on this day he rested from all his work in this world for the redemption of man.” Pages 302, 303.
If Eld. P. could prove that all there is to redemption is to bring immortality to light, he might with some propriety speak of redemption as “finished.” But redemption is not finished till the people of God receive this immortality. Christ bids his people when they see the signs to lift up their heads, for their “redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21: 28. Paul says, “Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Rom. 8: 23. And even the earth itself is to be redeemed. Eph. 1: 14. And the day of redemption is not till the close of probation. Eph. 4: 30. If Eld. P., as one that breaks the fourth commandment and teaches men so, expects no more of immortality than the correct theory of it, then he may, if he please, consider redemption finished when immortality was fully brought to light by the gospel—whenever that was—but those who keep the commandments do have the promise of eternal life (Matt. 5: 17–19; 19: 16, 17), and will never believe that redemption is finished till themselves are made immortal in the resurrection of the just, and the earth itself is delivered from the curse. 2. And that Christ did not enter upon his rest from the work of redemption at his resurrection, is not only manifest from what has been said, but from the following statement of facts: (a) He had three great offices to fill in the redemption of his people and of their inheritance, viz., those of prophet, priest, and king. (b) As prophet, he was the public instructor of the people. Deut. 18: 15–19; Acts 3: 22. This part of his work he had finished, as appears from his prayer on the night of his betrayal. John 17: 4. (c) Before being a priest he must shed his blood and lay down his life, that he might have somewhat to offer. Heb. 8: 3. And when the last moment of his anguish had come, as he hung upon the cross the day before the Sabbath, he cried out, “It is finished,” and gave up the ghost. John 19: 30. At this point the price of redemption had been paid. Col. 1: 14. His resurrection attested the fact that the sacrifice was accepted. Rom. 4: 25. (d) He could not be a priest on earth. Heb. 8: 4. He therefore entered Heaven (Heb. 4: 14; 8: 1, 2), and sat down upon the throne of God (Ps. 110: 1–4), to do the work of a priest in delivering his people from their sins (Acts 5: 31), till finally, this work being closed, (e) he will be crowned king (Ps. 2: 6, 9), and return to our earth to redeem his people from death (1 Thess. 4: 16; Hos. 13: 14), and to deliver the earth itself from the curse—and then, and not before, will redemption be finished. Rev. 22: 1–5, Rom. 8: 15–25. There is not, therefore, the slightest proof that Christ rested from the work of redemption on the first day of the week, and there is the most positive proof that he did not; for the work of redemption is not even yet finished. Eld. P.’s third and fourth propositions, viz., that Christ blessed the first day of the week, and that he sanctified, that is, set apart or appointed, it to a holy use, may be answered as though but one, as the argument in their support is the same. The argument is this: 1. Christ having finished the work of redemption, rested from it on the first day of the week, as God rested from the work of creation on the seventh. 2. But God rested from his work on a blessed and sanctified day; therefore Christ must have blessed and sanctified the first day of the week, or he could not have rested upon a sanctified day as God did. The second of these statements falls to the ground unless it can have the support of the first. And we have proved the first one absolutely false. But the second one is not merely false; it is absurd and self-contradictory. Let us repeat the statement in Eld. P.’s own language: “How did God rest from his work? Answer. He sanctified the day on which he rested ‘BECAUSE that in it he HAD RESTED.’ Hence, it follows that Christ must have sanctified the first day, ‘BECAUSE that in it he HAD RESTED;’ or he could not have rested as God did, on a sanctified day, unless he had sanctified the first day as God had sanctified the seventh.” p. 131.
The emphasis is that of Eld. P. Observe this reasoning, for in it Eld. P. reduces his own argument to a complete absurdity: 1. God rested on a sanctified day. 2. He sanctified the day BECAUSE that in it he HAD RESTED. In other words, he sanctified the day before he rested upon it; and he rested upon the day before he sanctified it! And this square self-contradiction is a fair specimen of the reasoning in this singular book. The first-day Sabbath must have a foundation in a divine appointment or it cannot stand. It cannot stand upon two which conflict with each other. It cannot be the seventh day of the week sanctified in Eden, and also be the first day of the week sanctified at Christ’s resurrection. Though Eld. P. has tried hard to place the first-day Sabbath on the seventh-day foundation, yet when he finds to the joy of his heart that the first day has a foundation of its own, laid in the same manner as that of the seventh-day Sabbath, he abandons the seventh-day foundation, and abolishes the Sabbath built thereon, and with confident assurance establishes the first day upon its own merits. But alas for the so-called Christian Sabbath! Its attempt to seize the foundation of the ancient Sabbath is a fraud! Its pretence that it has such a foundation of its own is an inexcusable falsehood! But the foundation of God standeth sure. The pillars of heaven are not so firm as these memorable words: “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. 2: 3.