AN ILLOGICAL "INDUCTION."
By W. N. Glenn
REV. E. HANDEL JONES, of Williamstown, province of Victoria, Australia, sets forth the following proposition with the confident air of one who deems his position impregnable:— I take my text, the citadel of Adventism, "I came not to destroy the law or the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfill," and, viewed in the light of the epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews—from their general spirit and drift I draw the following induction:— "That the Old Testament dispensation is superseded by the Lord Jesus Christ." It follows, therefore:— 1. That the moral law, being a part of the Old Testament dispensation, is therefore fulfilled by Christ. 2. That the Jewish Sabbath being part of the moral law is consequently fulfilled by Christ. 3. That the apostles so interpreted Christ's relation to the Old Testament in general, and the moral law in particular, that they themselves practically effected the transfer from the seventh to the first day of the week. 4. That it is the will of Christ that the Jewish Sabbath as such be no longer binding; therefore, 5. Consequently we conclude that the first day of the week is divinely authorized in lieu of the Jewish Sabbath. This "induction" is illogical because it concludes that Christ did just what he declared that he came not to do. It is illogical because it concludes that that which is "fulfilled" is necessarily superseded and practically done away. According to the position here taken, Christ destroyed the law by fulfilling it, after declaring positively that his purpose was "not to destroy the law or the prophets." It also subpoenas "the epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews" as witnesses, and claims to prove by them that Christ did that which he came not to do. From these epistles he also draws the conclusion that "the Old Testament dispensation is superseded by Christ." But as the former conclusion necessitates the assumption that Christ contradicted himself, we are at least suspicious of subsequent deductions from the same premise. As to Christ superseding the Old Testament dispensation, the thought is not sustained by the facts. Christ preached the Old Testament during his ministry. The Old Testament constituted the Scriptures in the time of Christ, and for some time afterward. After his resurrection he opened the understanding of his disciples, "that they might understand the Scriptures." Luke 24:45. The disciples also preached Christ from the Old Testament, having no other Scriptures. See Acts 2:16-21, 30, 31; 8:26-35. The epistles cited by Mr. Jones as witnesses to his "induction" also testify to this fact. The apostle Paul tells us that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished617unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. The same apostle says, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Rom. 15:4. See also 1 Cor. 9:9, 10. He also charged Timothy, "by the coming of the Lord," to "preach the word." The Old Testament is the word of the Lord, indicted by the "Spirit of Christ," which was in the writers. See 1 Peter 1:10-12. From these scriptures, and many others, it is clear that the dispensation of the Old Testament has not been superseded. "The word of the Lord endureth forever." The fulfilling of a law always means the carrying out of its provisions, not the destruction or annulment of the law. Christ did fulfill the law in every particular; but, so far from superseding it, the record says he "magnified" it, and "made it honorable." That was just what the world had not been doing. The world had been disregarding the law of God. That was what constituted it a sinful world, for "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). "Where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:15). Jesus Christ was the first man who had perfectly fulfilled, or obeyed, the law. Shall we conclude that the law was to continue until one man could be found to fully obey, and then be set aside? That is the logic of the "induction" quoted in this article. That this was not the design of the Lord, we have proof in the eighth chapter of Romans. The law points out duty, but of itself it cannot help sinful men (men of "carnal mind," verse 7) to be obedient. Therefore "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh [which is sinful], God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Mr. Jones' conclusions evidently overreach his design, for they logically indicate that the work of the gospel minister is superfluous. As "sin is the transgression of the law," and "sin is not imputed where there is no law," what is the logical conclusion if the law be annulled? Are we not shut up to the conclusion that there is no sin? And if there be no sin, what need of pardon? what need of a Redeemer? what need of a preacher? To fulfill a law of the State is always understood to be the fulfilling of its requirements. No man supposes, when he pays his taxes in fulfillment of the demands of the law, that the law is thereby superseded. If he should so suppose, he would find himself much mistaken when the time came round for payment again. Nor is it deemed necessary in such case that the law be reënacted from year to year. If the logic of the "induction" herein before quoted be correct, then the fulfillment of a law of the British Government (to which the Australian colonies are subject), would mean its repeal, hence the necessity of reënactment after every fulfillment. But the provinces of that country do not so reason. For instance, they are still enforcing an old and tyrannical Sunday law, declared and vigorously enforced in the reign of Charles II., and condemning men to the stocks for working on Sunday. And the men who contend that the law of God was annulled by its fulfillment, do not claim that this old British Sunday law is not legitimately in force. From the utterly illogical reasoning of Mr. Jones it is clear that he has no ground whatever for his assumption that the apostles "practically effected the transfer [of the Sabbath] from the seventh to the first day of the week." Inasmuch as the Scriptures are silent upon the subject of such a transfer, we are certainly warranted in demanding better evidence than is presented in this argument of the Australian preacher. As to his proposition that "it is the will of Christ that the Jewish Sabbath as such be no longer binding," we have only to say that the weekly Sabbath never was "a Jewish Sabbath as such." It was promulgated in Eden, and always was, and is, the Sabbath of the Lord, designated by himself as "my holy day," "the holy of the Lord." Isa. 58:13. "The Sabbath was made for man," not merely for the Jews, and "the Son of Man [not the Jews] is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:27, 28. This statement was made when the first-day sabbath tradition had not been heard of. Whether, upon such illogical assumptions as are set forth by Mr. Jones, it is wisdom to "conclude that the first day of the week is divinely authorized," we leave the reader to judge for himself. If, however, it come to us "in lieu of the Jewish Sabbath"—an institution entirely of the imagination, nowhere mentioned in the word of God—then the assumed divine authorization of the first-day sabbath must itself be imaginary.