Discussion on the Sabbath Question
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE. “Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day Sabbath is to be observed by Christians throughout the gospel dispensation?” ELD. WAGGONER, affirms; ELD. VOGEL, denies. Eld. Waggoner’s Third Affirmative.
Having introduced the third point in my argument, the perpetuity of the law, I will notice a reference made by Eld. Vogel, which will show how a person may be led astray by his theory and prepossessions. He says, “I also believe that there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” Heb. 7:18. Here I may justly quote the language which he unjustly used. “This is a convenient way he has of begging the question by assuming that” the commandment there referred to was that of the Sabbath. And, “that my charge of Bro. V.’s begging the question is just, is simply a matter of fact which any reader has the means to verify by reading Num. 3:10, and parallel passages wherein the service of priesthood was given exclusively to Aaron and his sons; and observing that Paul in Heb. 7, is arguing the change of priesthood from Aaron to Christ. Of course, in making this change of priesthood there must be ‘of necessity a change also of the law.’ Heb. 7:12. For disregarding that law a king of Israel was smitten with leprosy; and Paul argued (what every one can see) that if that law remained, Christ, who was of the tribe of Judah, could not be recognized as a priest. This testimony of ‘our beloved brother Paul’ has often been ‘wrested’ by applying it to that to which his words could have no possible reference. The relations of two laws to which I have before referred are not always kept in view, and this oversight gives rise to serious and fatal errors. Law is primary, but redemption is secondary. Law springs from the will and attributes of God; redemption is occasioned by the willfulness of man. Law must have existed, from the fact that the relation of Creator and creature, of Governor and governed, existed. But redemption would not have been, had not sin come into the world. And we cannot have correct ideas of secondary principles, if we have no just ideas of their primaries. No man can so appreciate a pardon as to receive it in a right spirit and be benefited by it, who has not just regard for the law which condemned him. Thus the gospel is often perverted to be a mere minister to selfishness because the law—the revelation of the divine will and the necessary basis of the gospel—is rejected. Laws grow out of principles; but principles are not laws. We can have no idea of the principles of any government, human or divine, except through its laws. There can be no difference between the attributes of God and the principles of his government. As God is just, justice must be a principle of his government, and it must unite with and have an influence on every other principle. So of love, of immutability, and of every divine attribute and perfection. We cannot conceive of his possessing an attribute which does not shine forth in his government. But as law is the revelation of principles, and the basis of government, whatever applies to the government of God, applies, of course, to his law. Law is but the expression of his will, and his revealed will must be in harmony with his attributes. Considering that there is so close a relation between the divine law and the divine perfections it is not strange that David prayed thus: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Ps. 119:18. 1. All that can be said in favor of law in the abstract can be applied to that law which God spake to Israel. As law is the foundation of government and the rule of action, it follows that character under the government is only determined by the law; and, of course, character is the counterpart of the law obeyed. A man’s character being known, it is known by what kind of a law he has walked. Or, conversely, knowing the nature of a law, it is easy to determine the character that will be developed by obeying it. Let us apply these truths to the law in question. (1) Jehovah said to Israel, if they would obey his voice they would be “a holy nation.” Ex. 19:6. It is impossible to become holy by obeying a law which is less than holy itself. A defect in the law would leave a defect in the character. (2) “The law of the Lord is perfect.” Ps. 19:7. Perfection in a law which is the outgrowth of the divine attributes is of that nature that it cannot be improved. Nor can it be duplicated by another law equally perfect, unless there are two distinct wills of God, emanating from distinct classes of attributes. (3) “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12:13. The word “man” is here used generically—it means the race. This testimony is of great importance. The whole duty of the race of man is comprehended in those commandments which God gave to Israel. And as that law contains man’s whole duty, man would not have come under condemnation if he had kept it. Of course he would have been justified by it. And, again, it is the only law of its kind, for it is impossible to have two different laws, each containing the whole duty of moral agents; each containing the elements of justification before God. (4) “The doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13. This certainly refers to the same law that is referred to in the Scriptures quoted above; for a law which is perfect; which contains the whole duty of man, which will form a holy character, will certainly justify the doer; and no other would. These are a few of the high testimonials we gather from the Scriptures in favor of that law which God gave to Israel; and the points which follow confirm this. 2. As the will or law of God is the outgrowth of his attributes, it is the revelation of his own character, and is called his righteousness. (1) We are commanded to be holy, because God is holy; but he said to Israel that they would be holy if they obeyed his voice, or kept that law which he proclaimed to them. This is the nearest that a creature can possibly approach to the holiness of God: to be perfectly conformed to his will, and to form a character in harmony with the revelation of his attributes. (2) “All thy commandments are righteousness.” Ps. 119:172. This is but a fair conclusion from the evident truths here presented. This psalm, which in every verse contains a tribute to the law of God, says, verse 142, “Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.” And verse 144, “The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting.” Also, verse 123, “The word of thy righteousness.” (3) It is referred to in like manner in Isa. 51:7. “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness; the people in whose heart is my law.” His law is “the word of his righteousness.” In harmony with this are the words of Paul. (4) “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law.” Rom. 3:21. Passing for the present the contingent relation brought to view in the first part of this verse and the context, we notice that the law witnesses to the righteousness of God. As a law which can justify the doer must contain the elements or principles of justification, that is, be a complete, holy law; so a law to be a witness to righteousness must itself be the exponent of righteousness; for a law cannot testify concerning principles which it does not embrace. A law will not condemn that which it does not forbid, nor justify that which it does not require. That the law is both a rule of righteousness and an exposition of the righteousness of God could not be more clearly and strongly stated than is here stated by the apostle. 3. On the perpetuity of this law as a rule of righteousness (the righteousness of God), see Isa. 51:6: “My righteousness shall not be abolished.” This can refer to but one of two things: a. To Jehovah’s own attributes, which, as a revelation, would be equivalent to saying that he would not commit suicide! b. To the law, which is the revealing of his character to man, and which is called his righteousness. This must be its meaning, and contains a timely rebuke to those who teach that it has been abolished. See Ps. 119:126: “It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law.” 4. On the law as the will of God. (1) Ps. 40:8: “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” As Jesus was here presented in prophecy, so was he in its fulfillment. He said he came not to destroy the law, Matt. 5:17. But he who teaches that he did destroy it (or abolish it, which is the same thing, for when a law is abolished nothing further can be done to destroy it) makes the Saviour’s actions contradict his words. As his Eld. V.’s position I entreat him to pause in this work of presumption and no longer cast such indignity upon the blessed Son of God. Jesus says it is of no avail to cry, “Lord, Lord,” to him, if we do not the will of his Father, and that he will say to the rejected, “Depart from me ye that work iniquity”—literally, workers of lawlessness, or law breakers. Matt. 7:21–23. (2) “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:16, 17. I have said that the law springs directly from the will of God; but redemption was made necessary by the willfulness of man. One is primary, the other is secondary. Here Jesus confirms this view by giving the will of the Father as a test of the doctrines of the Son. The gospel must be in harmony with the law of God or it is not from Heaven—not from God. The harmony between the law and the gospel is based on the unity of the Father and the Son. By these words of the Saviour the Jews would have been warranted in rejecting his doctrines if they had convicted him with the revealed will of God; and so should we now reject every (so-called) gospel that does not harmonize with the law of God. Such a “gospel” puts the Son in antagonism to the Father—it is not from above. But the most decisive testimony on the will of God is that of Paul. (3) “Behold thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” Rom. 2:17, 18. This clearly confirms what I have said that the law reveals the will of God. Now note: a. It is the law in which the Jew rested, and therefore it is the law that was given to Israel. b. It is a law of truth (see Ps. 119:142). The Jew had “the form of knowledge and truth in the law.” Had he kept it he would have had the essence and power of the truth as well as the form, as we must judge from what has been said concerning the nature of this law, and as we shall see further. c. It is a law which forbids stealing, adultery, and the worship of idols; verses 21, 22. It is, therefore, a “tangible” law of “direct enforcement.” d. The breaking of this law dishonors God; verse 23. Yet some now so far depart from “the apostle’s doctrine” as to contend that God is dishonored in the keeping of it!59 e. The breaking of this law neutralized the circumcision of the Jew, and destroyed its efficacy as a sign of righteousness; verse 25; chap. 4:11. f. If the Gentile keeps this law he will be preferred before the Jew; verse 27. There is righteousness in this law which could make the Gentile a Jew “inwardly,” and count his uncircumcision for circumcision; verses 26–29; that is, secure to the Gentile a covenant interest in the promises to Abraham, which are the blessings of the gospel; Gen. 17. Of course this law is the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, as will be more fully shown hereafter. h. It is a law which will justify the doer, verse 13. i. And all these words the apostle applies in this dispensation. Here is a mass of evidence too plain to be controverted. 5. That this law is the rule of the Judgment is further proved in Rom. 3, where it is said the Jews received “the oracles of God.” Stephen said in Acts 7:38, that Moses received “the lively oracles to give unto us.” These are “the living oracles.” Paul says that the chief benefit of the calling and separation of the Jews was that the oracles of God were intrusted to them; and from them we are to receive them. And he proceeds to show that if the unbelief of the Jews made the faith of God (faithfulness, truth) of no effect, God could not judge the world. Rom. 3:1–6. Solomon also said the commandments of God should be kept because “God will bring every work into Judgment.” 6. The Gentiles were and are amenable to this law. Paul says of both Jews and Gentiles that “they are all under sin;” Rom. 3:9; and to prove it he quotes from the Old Testament. It needs but little, if any, argument to show that quotations from the Scriptures given to Israel would not prove the Gentiles sinners unless they were amenable to the law contained therein. Any amount of quotations from the statutes of England would not prove me guilty of wrong in the United States, because their jurisdiction does not extend here. This is a question of jurisdiction. When the apostle declares that “all the world” are proved guilty by the law, Rom. 3:19, we know there can be no limitation to the term “world,” because this is a conclusion drawn from the previous evidence that Jews and Gentiles are on a level and are all proved sinners by the same Scripture testimony. His quotations were entirely without point, and his conclusions erroneous, if, as many now affirm, “the law” did not reach the Gentiles. And this is in harmony with the evidence of Rom. 2, and other yet to be given. 7. Men are proved sinners by the law. This is both the statement of a truth, and the necessary conclusion from the proofs given. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20. But this could not be true if the law is abolished, as Eld. Vogel teaches. I have shown that there was a distinction between the law and the sacrifices and offerings. Had no sin existed no sacrifices would have been required. But “where no law is there is no transgression.” They exist in the following order: 1st, the Law; 2dly, the transgression; 3dly, sacrifice for sin. But the types of the past dispensation represent the relation we sustain to the offering of Christ in this; and the difference between the law which makes known sin, and the system of remedy for sin, is as clear and distinct in this dispensation as it was in that. In a word, the law, by which is the knowledge of sin; and the gospel, which is the remedy for sin, are as distinct as two systems can be. And the perpetuity of the law is fully and sufficiently proved by this declaration, that it is the instrument which points out sin. While that is a revealed truth, they who argue for the abolition of the law are striking at the very foundation of truth—at the very life of the gospel itself. For the gospel—good news of salvation, redemption, pardon—is a nullity if it has not the pre-existing law as its basis. Every evidence and reason here produced, and that shall hereafter be produced, shows the unsoundness of Eld. Vogel’s theory of law, and the correctness of my premises and conclusions based on a view of Deut. 5:15. If the law which was given to Israel had no previous existence, if it did not reach the Gentiles, then it cannot be proved that the Gentiles were under legal obligation; that they were subjects of government or of the Judgment. And this conclusion which I deduced from the Old Testament (and which Eld. V. virtually indorsed), is plainly stated in the New Testament. But few points in Eld. Vogel’s second negative require notice; they will be attended to in due time. Eld. Vogel’s Third Negative.
Eld. Waggoner completely misapprehends me on Heb. 7:18, hence all his nice talk about “begging the question,” and “wresting” the Scriptures, is without point as against me. He argued from 2 Tim. 3:16, “All Scripture . . . is profitable,” &c., in such a way as to leave the impression that all Scripture, because it is profitable, is now binding on us in the same sense that it was on the Jews. I showed that such a conclusion is erroneous from the fact that what Paul says concerning the law of the priesthood is part of “all Scripture,” is therefore “profitable,” and yet is expressly said to be abolished. In other words, while we may be profited by it, we are not profited in the same way and sense that the Jew was. Hence, for aught that appears from 2 Tim. 3:16, and all similar passages, the entire law may be equally abolished, and yet be “profitable,” and “for our instruction.” The third division of my brother’s argument, begun in his second affirmative and continued throughout his third, is still unfinished. Courtesy requires me to notice it; nevertheless, I do it with reluctance now since it is difficult to divine what sort of an end so curious a beginning may have. His chief aim seems to be to prove that whatever is expressive of an attribute of God (i. e., whatever is moral) cannot be abolished, but must extend through all time and eternity. But have I not already admitted this? Why, then, spend so much time in its proof? Let him show that the Sabbath is moral in every feature of it—(1) in the idea of sacred rest, and (2) in the idea of rest on the seventh day of the week—and I will surrender unconditionally. I deny that the Sabbatic institution is moral in any essential feature of it. Here is something “tangible,” and I invite my brother to the issue. He seems, indeed, to be aiming at this, but in so round about a way that I fear his readers fail as yet to see the drift of his argument. His third sub-proposition reads thus: “The law of which the Sabbath commandment was a part, was not abolished, but is now binding.” Granting as he must and does, that at least part of the Mosaic code, as the law concerning the priesthood, together with all ceremonial observances are abolished, he manifestly regards these as no part of the law. But of this he should give clear proof, since it is vital to his argument, but is by no means self-evident, and is moreover squarely denied. If I have been at all successful in gathering his position, it is this:— 1. Before sin entered this world, man as creature and subject was under rules and regulations; had he never sinned, he would always have been under these obligations; and the fact of his sinning does by no means release him from these laws, but they are constantly and always binding, since they are for man as man. 2. Since the fall, God has introduced means and expedients suited to man’s salvation from sin, and only necessary because man has sinned, and destined to pass away with the complete eradication of sin from the race. These expedients may change with a change of dispensations, as the sacrifices of the law have given place to the better means of the gospel; but the gospel itself, being only an expedient for man’s salvation, must eventually share a like fate with the sacrifices of the law. 3. The first class above named is designated by such expressions as duty, the law, the commandments, the voice of God, the will of God, &c., and may be called primary law. 4. The second class is designated by such expressions as pardon, gospel, remedial system, &c., and may be called secondary law. 5. The first class, or primary law, is based on the will and attributes of God, hence is wholly moral; and to this class the ten commandments belong, since they are expressive of duty, and are called the law, the voice of God, the will of God, &c. Consequently the ten commandments are all moral, the Sabbath is moral, and cannot pass away. 6. From the fact that Bro. W. refers the expressions, the law, the commandments, the voice of God, &c., to the ten commandments, and especially since he refers Eccl. 12:13, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man,” it is evident that he regards the decalogue as a complete compend of moral and “primary law.” Having now stated Eld. W.’s argument in such a way that the reader can see his aim (and I think I have done him full justice), let us examine its correctness. In the first place, not everything which is “duty” now, originated before the fall. “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” John 13:34. “This is my commandment,” says Jesus, John 15:12. This grew out of redemption, and yet is “duty,” and “redemption is secondary.” Hence, also, the text, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” has been taken in an unwarranted sense by my brother. Secondly. All divine law does not “spring from the will and attributes of God.” Moral law may be expressive of the will and attributes of God, but positive law is only expressive of will. It is the absence of any moral reason for it that makes it positive. Thirdly. The commandment prohibiting Adam to eat of a certain tree was positive, since it rested exclusively on the will of God; and yet, having been given before the fall, it was “primary law.” But if one “primary law” is positive, so may another be. Hence if it could even be successfully shown that all of the ten commandments belong to “primary law,” it would not thence follow that the Sabbath is moral. Indeed, I have already shown it to be positive. Fourthly. A positive requirement, resting as it does simply on the will of God, may be changed at any time that God sees fit and man’s growth or need requires. Hence, all “primary law” is not unabolishable; and to prove the Sabbath to be a “primary law” has nothing to do with proving its present obligation. Fifthly. The ten commandments are not a complete compend of moral or “primary law.” They do not, for example, contain the “primary law” forbidding polygamy, nor that moral law contained in the Saviour’s “new commandment.” Hence also they do not contain man’s “whole duty,” and cannot be called “the law” in my brother’s special sense. They are not even all moral; the Sabbath certainly is not, to say nothing of the prohibition to “make” images. Sixthly. Even the form which at least some of the moral commandments of the decalogue take is furnished by the facts of the fall. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” is an example. Seventhly. Compliance with a positive commandment growing out of the work of redemption is also “duty” (Mal. 3:7, 8; Luke 7:30) and a measure of “righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), and non-compliance, sinful disobedience (1 Chron. 13:10), needing expiation or atonement if forgiven. And there are “fruits of righteousness” which are not by the law, but “by Jesus Christ.” Phil. 1:11. The fact, therefore, that it was “duty” to observe the Sabbath, and in keeping it a measure of righteousness, and that atonement was made over it, does neither prove it to be “primary law” or moral. Thus every distinction which Eld. W. seeks to establish by which to prove the Sabbath a “primary law,” moral, or perpetual, fails, and with it his third division. Let us however examine his exegesis of, and comments on, certain passages. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.” Matt. 7:21. True; but is the Sabbath still His will? The passover was once his will, is it therefore now? That was a fine homily, Bro. W., which you delivered from the text, “It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law,” and no doubt might have had a good effect upon some hardened sinners in David’s time. But it strikes me that if you were in position to preach to your brethren from Gal. 4:10, 11, “Ye observe days,” &c. “I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain,” or from verse 21, “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you hear the law?” your sermon might be in keeping with the dispensation under which we live. You could show how the covenant from Mt. Sinai “gendereth to bondage” and how like Hagar, God, not man, hath “cast it out.” Then also, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,” would make a most happy peroration. Attempting to prove that the Mosaic code contained two laws, and that the ten commandments are one of these two, my brother quotes Ex. 24:12: “Come up unto me into the mount, and be there; and I will give to thee tables of stone, and a law and commandments which I have written.” Here the words “law” and “commandments” are qualified by “which I have written.” This is not only obvious from a glance at the original, but also the word “law” is found the conjunctive accent kudhna, showing that the Hebrews so understood it. But when “law” is made definite by “which I have written,” it may take the article on that account, and not because this law stands apart from the rest of the Mosaic code as sui generis, or distinctive and alone of its kind; hence also the King’s translators have felt it no unwarranted procedure to omit the article. Jer. 7:19, 20, does not prove the law one thing, and “incense,” “burnt offerings,” and “sacrifices,” another. It only shows that in the case in hand they were offered in such a state of heart as to be no offerings. The spirit in which an act is done gives character to it; it may or may not be obedience to law according as a proper spirit is present or absent; and the presence or absence of a proper spirit in any particular act may often be undiscernible to the human observer save as it crops out in other acts; hence these, as in the case before us, must be brought up to show the character of that. “And again,” says Eld. W., “chap. 7:22, 23: ‘For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice!’ When they heard his voice he spake his law, the ten commandments. Deut. 4:12, 13. Thus plainly does the Lord separate his law from all secondary matters.” This is ingenious. But I must remind my brother of Prov. 18:17: “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him.” “My voice” may apply to anything which God has commanded, whether directly or through an agent (see 1 Sam. 15:1, 20, 22); hence to restrict it here to the ten commandments is unwarranted unless circumstances compel us to it. But there are no such compelling circumstances. “Obey my voice,” here refers and is equivalent to “keep my covenant,” in Ex. 19:5. This covenant is contained in Ex. 20–23. It was not all spoken directly to the people by God, because they could not endure to hear him to the end (Ex. 20:18, 19), and they begged Moses to act as spokesman. He did so and wrote it in a book, and the people accepted it. Chap. 24:3–8. And this covenant or “voice of God” does contain commandments concerning sacrifices. The words of Jeremiah contain nothing to the contrary: “I spake not . . . nor commanded . . . concerning sacrifices . . . but, obey my voice.” The idea is this: Mere sacrifice without the spirit of obedience is not what the Lord wants; but sacrifice in its proper spirit is obedience to God’s voice, and this the Lord requires. Obedience is the emphatic word, and the contrast is between disobedience in whatever seeming obedience it may inhere. There is therefore no contrast between two different laws, and the attempt to find authority here to so divide the Mosaic code fails. If, however, the contrast were between “sacrifice” and “the voice of God,” then, according to the use of negatives to be explained when I come to Matt. 5:17, the sense would be this: Sacrifice is indeed part of the voice of God, but so small a part of that, compared with all that, it is as nothing, and to rely on it exclusively or chiefly is as it were no obedience. I am the more certain of this since I have in a previous number shown the unity of the law. And here I wish to add a few more indisputable proofs. (1) Paul speaks of the entire Mosaic code as “the whole law.” Gal. 5:3. Now that which constitutes one “whole law” cannot be two. (2) In John 7:23, the Sabbath is included in “the law of Moses.” (3) In Mal. 4:4, the ten commandments are included in “the law of Moses.” “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.” “With the statutes and judgments” no more makes them no part of “the law of Moses” than “with the bishops and deacons” in Phil. 1:1, declares them not to be saints. But the truth is, “with” is a supplement; the Hebrew firmly reads “statutes and judgments,” as the Douay version correctly renders it, and the Greek “as to statutes and judgments.” Take whichever version you will, the sense is substantially the same—the Mosaic code is but one “whole law.” On this Gibraltar I plant myself. But granting, for argument’s sake, that there are two laws and that the ten commandments form one of these, and that one, namely, which my brother is so anxious to show not to be abolished. Then I want no better proof that it is abolished than some of the very texts on which he most relies to prove the contrary. Take, for example, Matt. 5:17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” While I think that this refers to the whole Mosaic code, and can prove it from the context, I will for the present treat it as if it referred only to the ten commandments, since my brother will have it so. Let us first notice a peculiar use of negatives. “I received not testimony from man,” says the Saviour, John 5:34. The circumstances show that he does receive it, but that he has “greater testimony than that of John,” verse 36, and so much greater that in comparison with the reliance he places on this his reliance on John’s testimony sinks into nothingness. Again, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” 1 Cor. 1:17. If we construe this as my brother does, Matt. 5:17, it would mean that Paul was forbidden to baptize. But Paul did baptize; hence such a construction is unwarranted, and it simply means this: Baptizing is indeed a part of my work, being included in preaching the gospel; but compared with the grand scope and magnitude of the latter, the mere act of baptizing is as nothing. So in Matt. 5 the Saviour says in effect, The abolition of the law is indeed a part of my mission and is implied in fulfilling it; but compared with the grand work of fulfilling it, of bringing in the verity set forth in type and prophecy, it is as nothing. “The law was given by Moses, but the grace and the truth [the verity, the antitype] came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:17. Sabbath, for example, means rest, and the Sabbath is a type of rest; and, says the Saviour, Matt. 11:28, “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest;” “And his rest shall be glorious,” says the prophet (Isa. 11:10); “for if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” (2 Cor. 3:11). We who have believed do enter into rest (Heb. 4:3), for “the body [the antitype] is of Christ.” Col. 2:17. But during the Saviour’s personal ministry the antitype had not yet come; hence he said to those “pressing into the kingdom” that the law must stand firm as the heavens till all the types and prophecies should ripen into the gospel; and when that time came, when the day of Pentecost arrived, the law ended and the gospel began. Sic transit gloria legis.