DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
A FEW points, professedly on a Scripture basis, and a few references to history, remain to be noticed. Acts 20:7. On this, as usual, the Doctor assumes much. He professes to know that only one meeting was held at Troas, but how he came to know it we shall never learn. True, we have account of but one, which was remarkable for a certain occurrence and case of healing. But other authors do not think this was the only meeting, and this, when carefully examined affords no help to the Sunday cause. The reader will please bear in mind that there is a difference in time between the first day of the week and Sunday. The first is a Bible designation of a 24-hour period, which commences at the setting of the sun, the evening of which precedes the morning. Sunday is a Roman or heathen designation of a 24-hour period, commencing at midnight, the morning of which precedes the evening. The meeting at Troas was a night meeting—on the evening of the first day of the week, but not on Sunday evening. It commenced on the evening of the first day of the week, and continued over on to Sunday morning, when Paul started on his journey. But if the Doctor thinks that it was Sunday evening, then he must also say that the apostle tarried seven days at Troas, clear over Sunday, without any meeting until Sunday evening, which is too improbable for belief. Even strong advocates of Sunday have admitted all we ask on this point. Thus, Prof. McGarvey, in his Commentary on Acts, says:— “I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who were Jews, or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning, Paul and his companions resumed their journey.” We notice two points of evidence which show that first day was not observed by them as a Sabbath. 1. The companions of Paul—having rested with their brethren over the Sabbath—started on their journey, while Paul remained to hold a closing, evening meeting. The evangelist says, “We went before to ship and sailed unto Assos.” 2. Having held a meeting on the evening of the first day of the week, which, because of circumstances, making this meeting a memorable one, continued until the morning of the first day, Paul departed on his journey. It is with good reason that Rev. J. W. Morton said of this text:— “It is a remarkable fact that this text, which is the only one in the New Testament that speaks of public religious exercises on the first day of the week, is, at the same time, the only one in the Bible that directly proves that that day is not the Sabbath.” Next in course comes 1 Cor. 16:2, upon which he simply makes an assertion that it concerned collections in the congregation on the first day. But we will prove that it refers to no such thing. The following list of facts and authorities ought to be conclusive with every one:— “Let him lay up at home, treasuring as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, ‘by himself,’ means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity.”—Barnes. “Some are of the opinion that the sums thus set apart were brought to the treasury of the church at the time; but the words do not seem to admit of that interpretation; and if each separately laid by the sum which he proposed to give, the whole would be brought together at once when necessary, without any trouble in soliciting contributions.”—Comp. Com. “Every one was to lay by in store, have a treasury or fund with himself for this purpose. . . . Some of the Greek fathers rightly observe here that this advice was given for the sake of the poorer among them. They were to lay by, from week to week, and not bring into the common treasury, that by this means their contributions might be easy to themselves, and yet grow into a fund for the relief of their brethren.”—Matthew Henry, Com. “The apostle only meant that there should be no private and petty gatherings, then first to be made, when he came, but only one suneisphora [joint contribution] formed, containing all the sums which had been gradually laid up in private.”—Bloomfield, Notes on Greek Text. And of the ‘gathering’ he says; “The word logia is nowhere else found in the scriptural, and very rarely in the classical writers; and seems to have been confined to the language of common life. It properly signifies a gleaning, and then, as here, a slight gathering.” “Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul’s intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.”—Olshausen, Com. “Lay by him in store; at home.”—Justin Edwards’ Notes. “Par’ heauto, by or with oneself; in one’s house; at home, Fr. chez soi. 1 Cor. 16:2. So Xen. Mem. 1. 13. 3.”—Robinson’s Lexicon. “Par’ heauto, at one’s home or house. Lat. apud se, Hdt., 1, 105, cf. 1, 86.”—Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon. These were Sunday men; some of them of the most rabid kind. What but the most evident facts could lead them thus to remove the foundation for a popular Sunday inference? We copy also a few translations:— “Let every one off you put asyde at home, and laye vppe whatever he thinketh mete.”—Tyndale. “Let each one of you lay by himself in store.”—Sawyer. “Let each of you lay by him and treasure up.”—Anderson. “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”—Syriac. To the above we add a summary given by J. W. Morton, in his address to the Synod of the Ref. Pres. church:— “I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection box of the congregation! Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, par heauto, ‘by one’s self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it ‘apud se,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hemselven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘naer sig sielf,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now if your premise is false, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible.” On Rev. 1:10, he says, “It was holy time, hallowed by the Lord.” Why, Doctor, how could that be so, seeing that “the day kept is holy because of the act of obedience?” Have you forgotten what you said before? Surely, “your ways are not equal.” The Doctor says, “It was hallowed by the Lord when he vanquished the enemy.” Why did he not give us the text from which he learned this? Oh, why will men pursue such a course sacred Scriptures, and make void the commandment of God by their traditions? When God’s word plainly declares that He blessed the seventh day and sanctified or hallowed it, and calls it his holy day, the Doctor presumptuously declares it is not holy—that its only claim to holiness is based on mere human observance. Then he turns around and asserts with great assurance that the first day is holy, that the Lord hallowed it, notwithstanding the Lord never uttered one word to that effect. How perfectly apply the words of the Lord to such a work as this:— “Thus saith the Lord God: Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirits and have seen nothing! . . . Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken?” Eze. 13:3, 7. And again, in like language:— “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. And her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.” But we believe it was holy time. More than that, we know that the Lord’s day was and is holy time, for the Lord himself says so. “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,” &c. True, this refers to a day which Dr. Benson stigmatizes as “the Jewish Sabbath,” which to him is no delight, upon which he tries to heap dishonor and reproach, which he says was not holy except on the slim basis of human observance. But on this question we have no faith in Dr. Benson, while we have the utmost confidence in the Lord’s own word on the subject. The seventh day is the only day which the Lord ever claimed as his day—his holy day; and the only day which he ever hallowed or sanctified and blessed, thus making it holy. If the first day of the week is the Lord’s day, in what scripture is the proof found? In what text did he put forth such a claim? If it is a hallowed day, how may we to a certainty know the fact? What proof exists that it is so? Assertions, human assertions, there are without number, but these are worthless in the absence of Scripture testimony. These prophetic words (see all of Eze. 13) we now see fulfilled. Having clearly shown that his whole argument is a series of the weakest inferences, we digress for a moment to speak a few words to those Baptist papers which have spoken words of commendation of the Doctor’s book. In so doing they destroy the force of their own arguments against inference and tradition. “Happy is the man that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” It is an easy matter to present as strong inferential argument for infant baptism, or for sprinkling for baptism, as the Doctor has for Sunday. And he knows it, if these Baptist editors do not. Yet they will not admit inference as a ground for infant baptism, though they do admit it in favor of Sunday keeping. We can quote almost any required number of first-day keeping authors who admit they have no direct evidence in favor of Sunday. Would they admit this if evidence existed? Pedo-baptists are more consistent than Baptists. The first do not claim the necessity for express precept for ordinances or institutions, and their action is consistent with their profession. The latter claim that express revelation or positive precept is necessary to the existence of an institution, and yet keep “the day of the sun,” without any such revelation or precept. If they doubt the correctness of our conclusion, we stand pledged to make it good with sufficient evidence.