DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
COMING to chapter 5 we have to leave the ground devoted to law, concerning the Sabbath, and enter a field of pure conjecture. Not a fact is stated, which can be proved to be a fact, to justify the conclusions arrived at by the Doctor. Almost his entire argument from the gospels is found in the following paragraph:— " 'On the first day of the week' the risen Lord appeared, first to the women, and next to them the disciples; and then to the two brothers who were on their way to Emmaus, explaining to them the Scriptures which foretold the crucifixion, causing their hearts to burn within them. The last interview of that momentous day is recorded by John 20:19-22: 'Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' Four times on that glorious day did Jesus appear to his beloved disciples, imparting to them the Holy Ghost—a fresh anointing for the work of the ministry to which they had been called." But what relation has all this to Sabbath sanctification and Sabbath obligation! Dr. Miller well said that "Historic mention is not legal obligation." Duty, as regards institutions, must be expressed, not implied or inferred. This is the great error of the Roman Church, followed in some important particulars by many Protestants. Tradition and inference are exalted to occupy the place of express revelation and injunction. The Doctor has given some of the testimony of the gospels concerning the facts of Christ's appearing to them on that first day of the week; but not enough to give a correct idea of the truth in the case. It sometimes results in great injury to the truth and the reader to suppress a material part of the evidence in question. Let us hear the testimony of Mark:— "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." Chap. 16:9-11. Then up to the time when Mary returned from the sepulchre and told them that she had seen Jesus, they did not believe in his resurrection; nor did they yet believe when she told them. Now we quote verses 12, 13:— "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." Concerning these two who went into the country, Luke in chap. 24 speaks more at length. They went to Emmaus, where Jesus was made known unto them when the day was nearly spent. They hastily returned to Jerusalem, and went where the eleven were together, and told them that they had seen the Lord at Emmaus. But their testimony in favor of his resurrection had no more effect upon their minds than that of Mary before. "Neither believed they them." Now we are coming to the very close of that first day, which the advocates of Sunday are wont to apostrophize as a day of gladness to the disciples because of the resurrection of the Lord. But Mark says that Mary went unto them "as they mourned and wept." Her words did not abate their mourning and weeping, for they did not believe her. All this talk about their rejoicing on that first day because of his resurrection is vapid and deceptive. There is no truth in it, though many church writers have freely indulged in it. It is the best they have to offer in favor of the day. And even to the very close of that day they remained incredulous. When the two returned from Emmaus, they not only did not believe, but still refused to believe he was risen. Mark as well as John speaks of the Saviour coming into their midst as they were together at the close of that first day. His words are as follows:— "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:14. John says he pronounced a benediction upon them. Mark shows that he further upbraided them because they did not believe the testimony of those who had seen him and thus knew that he was risen. Justin Edwards, in his Sabbath Manual, says, on this circumstance:— "On that first day he not only met with his disciples—a thing which we have no account of his doing, after his resurrection, on the seventh day—but he blessed them in their meeting, saying, 'Peace be unto you.' evidently approving of what they were doing." But they were not assembled in a "meeting," as he would be glad to make his reader believe. The Comprehensive Commentary says: "He appeared to them as they sat at meat, which gave him an opportunity to eat and drink with them, for their full satisfaction;" that is, that they might at last be fully convinced of his resurrection. Dr. Barnes, on Mark 16:14, says: "The word meat here means food or meals; as they were reclining at their meal." Thus is seen, that not only is there no evidence that they were convened in a meeting at the time of that first appearance of Jesus in their midst after his resurrection, but the evidence is positive that they were not;—it was the occasion of an evening meal. In Acts 1:13 we are informed that they all abode in one place, so they were at their own home, partaking of a meal when Jesus appeared, instead of being convened in a meeting for worship. Instead of celebrating his resurrection with songs of joy, "they mourned and wept," not believing he was risen. And instead of Jesus speaking approvingly of their assembling to rejoice over his resurrection, he upbraided them because they did not believe he was risen. Behold what a flimsy foundation on which to build a warrant or a divine sanction for Sunday observance. But the record further informs us that all this took place—not upon the Sabbath, nor even upon a Sabbath, but—when the Sabbath was past. Before any of these things transpired upon the first day of the week, they "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." God's commandment did not require the observance of the first day of the week; hence, on that day they came to the sepulchre to perform those rites which they would not do on the seventh day, out of regard for the statute of Jehovah. If the same respect and reverence were paid to the authority of God's commandment in these days, we should not have to contest this question. It is because the commandment of God is made void by tradition, Matt. 15, that we have to meet these false reasonings in favor of Sunday. As is the custom, the Doctor finds another Sunday meeting in John 20:26. But how a man can make out that "after eight days" from the very close of one first day will fall on the next first day, we cannot imagine. From the closing day of one week to the closing day of another, is always called seven days, in the Scriptures. It would not be the eighth day,—much less after eight days. Matthew and Mark, when speaking of the relation of one certain event to another, said it was after six days. Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2. Luke, speaking of the same, said it was about eight days after. Luke 9:28. What proof, then, have our first-day friends that that day was Sunday? Just none at all. And if it were Sunday it affords no evidence, that it was a sanctified day—a day to be thenceforth observed. On the Pentecost he lays much stress, as follows:— "The most notable event in the record, bearing on this question, was the Pentecost. This also occurred on the first day of the week, See Lev. 23:15, 16." It is worthy of note how freely the advocates of Sunday make strong assertions without attempting to prove them. First, the Pentecost has no possible bearing on this question; the Lord has not required to celebrate the Pentecost weekly. The very name forbids the idea. It was a yearly festival. But, our friends say, it fell on the first day of the week, and we commemorate the event which transpired on that day by observing the first day of the week! What a flimsy pretext. If it were to be observed thereafter we think the record would at least have stated that it was the first day of the week. But was it? It must be remembered that Pentecost means "the fiftieth,"—"the day of Pentecost" is "the fiftieth day." Of course it stands related to some day preceding it by fifty days. As to the order of this relation there is universal agreement. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society says: "A feast celebrated the fiftieth day after the sixteenth day of Nisan." Dr. Clarke says it was "the fiftieth day, reckoned from the first day of unleavened bread, i. e., on the morrow after the paschal lamb was offered." This first day of unleavened bread was the fifteenth day of the month; see Lev. 23:6. Kitto says it was "seven weeks from the sixteenth day of Nisan." Smith's Dictionary of the Bible says: "The fiftieth from the second day of the feast of unleavened bread. . . . It fell in due course on the sixth day of Sivan." On this point there is no dissent.295 Now every one must see at a glance that a day which was reckoned from the sixteenth day of any month, or which falls on the sixth day of any month, cannot be related to any particular day of the week. It would fall on the first day of the week just as often as the fourth of July falls on Sunday. It was marked and celebrated as "the fiftieth" from the Passover, not as a day or any day of the week. It was a yearly and not a weekly festival. Thus it is placed entirely outside of weekly observances, and proved to have no bearing whatever on weekly Sabbath observance. But we will further examine to see whether this particular fiftieth day, of Acts 2:1, was on the first day of the week. On this point we have some interesting evidences to offer. The Christian Statesman, in a discussion of the Sabbath question with Eld. W. H. Littlejohn, made the following concession on this Pentecost:— "A number of eminent authorities, chief among whom is the chronologist, Wieseler, compute it to have been on the seventh day." Dean Alford, in his "New Testament for English Readers," says:— "The question on which day of the week this day of Pentecost fell is beset with the difficulties attending our Lord's last supper. It appears probable, however, that it was on the Sabbath," that is, on Saturday. Prof. Hackett, in a Commentary on the Original Text, said:— "It is generally supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the descent of the Holy Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday." It is not "generally supposed" so by the mass of the people who depend for their information on the pulpits, or on such light theological literature as this book of Dr. Benson; the general belief that it was the Sabbath, and not the first day is by scholars who have closely examined the subject. And it is no credit to preachers and writers that they teach the people a different view from that held by the body of authorities. "If the views of the Pharisees were followed, and the Lord Jesus had with them kept the Passover on Thursday, as many have supposed, then the day of Pentecost would have occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday. Kuinoel, Lightfoot. It is impossible to determine the truth on this subject, nor is it of much importance." If Dr. Benson is right, that it has "a bearing" on the observance of the day as a Sabbath, it is of immense importance. But we agree with Dr. Barnes; it is of no importance, because the Lord never indicated any duty in regard to the day. There is no significance whatever as to the day on which the Holy Spirit was poured out, and therefore the record left it entirely unrecognized. Ripley, in his Notes, also says, "It cannot be satisfactorily decided." Smith's Bible Dictionary says it is a point disputed, but favors the view that it was the Sabbath. Jennings, in Jewish Antiquities, says:— "Since Christ eat his last Passover on the same day with the rest of the Jews, as we have already proved, namely, on the fourteenth of Nisan, which was Thursday, the next day, on which he was crucified, must be the feast of unleavened bread; therefore the sixteenth day, the Saturday, was the first day of the seven weeks betwixt that and the Pentecost; consequently the fiftieth day, or the morrow after the seventh Sabbath or week, which was the day of Pentecost, must fall on the Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath." Olshausen in his Commentary, says:— "Now, since, according to the accounts given regarding the time of the feast, the Passover, in the year of our Lord's death, fell so that the first of the feast fell from Thursday evening at six o'clock till Friday evening at the same hour, it follows of course that it was from Friday evening at six o'clock that the fifty days began to be counted. The fiftieth day fell, therefore, it appears, upon Saturday." We will now present a fact on this subject which is not generally considered. Chambers' Cyclopedia, article Pentecost, says:— "From early times, Pentecost has been regarded as one of the great festivals of the Christian year, and it was chosen as one of the times for the solemn administration of baptism; and the English name of the festival, Whit-Sunday, is derived from the white robes in which the newly-baptized were clad." But Whit-Sunday comes only once a year. This points us to the fact that the Pentecost was long commemorated in the Christian church as a yearly festival, not as a weekly celebration. And, also, it was not observed on Sunday. The Romans first began to observe the Passover on Sunday instead of the divinely appointed day, which the eastern churches considered irregular. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196, took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches, that is, to compel them to observe the Passover on Sunday. Dowling calls this the "earliest instance of Romish assumption." But Victor did not succeed in his effort; the eastern churches replied to him that "they would by no means depart, in this matter, from the custom handed down to them by their ancestors." It was not until the Council of Nice that a successful effort was made to make the Romish custom universal. Of course the day of celebrating the Pentecost depends on the time of celebrating the Passover. By fixing the first on a particular day of the week, the second was also fixed to a day of the week. So, in time, both the Passover and Pentecost were observed on Sunday, and when the Sunday became more popular the descent of the Spirit on the fiftieth day from the first day of the Passover feast was urged as a reason for observing every first day! How different, as a foundation for duty, from "the law and the testimony." Here we have briefly given a series of facts—not mere assertions unsupported by evidence. Were it in the province of a newspaper article we could greatly enlarge on these facts, but our limits forbid. We think every reader must see that it is only sheer assumption that this day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1 has any bearing on the Sabbath question, or that from it can be drawn any fair argument in favor of the Sunday.