DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
IT is a fact to be deplored that Christians who profess much zeal for the cause of God will yet rest their faith on popular doctrines of which there exists not one particle of actual proof. And in nothing is this shown more than in the case of pretended history in favor of Sunday. There is a class of quotations which float through Sunday literature which passes for truth, and which we are asked to receive without questioning, and yet it cannot be verified, and the authors who quote it never attempt to verify it. Were they to make such an attempt they would soon expose their weakness, and the folly of their position. Dr. Benson is no exception to the rule. His first quotation is professedly from Ignatius, as follows:— "‘Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, A. D. 101, only half a dozen years after the death of the apostle John, speaks familiarly of the Lord's day, and says: ‘Let us [Christians] no more Sabbatize [keep the Jewish holy day], but let us keep the Lord's day.’ ‘Let every one that loves Christ keep holy the Lord's day, the queen of days, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.’” This is the whole of it. How shall the reader know that these are the words of Ignatius? Is there no proof on this point? There is an abundance, but it is all against the quotation! A portion of it is here given:— "Two important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular notice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious by first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some of them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the epistle to the Magnesians from which the above quotation is made, nor do they say anything relative to first-day observance. 2. That the epistle to the Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the word day had been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of the first of these propositions the following testimony is adduced. Dr. Killen speaks as follows:— “‘In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture.’” The same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin:— “It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin, that, upwards of three hundred years ago, he passed a sweeping sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles. “Three letters of Ignatius are still by some claimed to be genuine, but this quotation is not from either of them. Of the quotation itself the learned Dr. Kitto thus speaks:— “‘We must here notice one other passage . . . as bearing on the subject of the Lord's day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A. D. 100.) The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt. [We omit the quotation in Greek. It is not necessary to an understanding of his comment.] “‘Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that after kuriakeen [Lord's] the word heemeran [day] is to be understood. . . . Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which antou can refer. This defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of heemera. Now if we take kuriakee zoee as simply ‘the life of the Lord,’ having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substantive to antou. . . . Thus upon the whole the meaning might be given thus:— “‘If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our Lord's life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again through him, etc.) . . . On this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord's day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term ‘Lord's day’ (for which it is often cited), since the material word heemera [day] is purely conjectural. “The learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this statement of Kitto. He renders Ignatius thus:— “‘If therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient days came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living according to the dominical life, etc. . . . The Medicean copy, the best and most like that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because zoeen is expressed and determines the word dominical to the person of Christ, and not to the day of his resurrection.’” —Andrews' Hist. of the Sabbath. This is the testimony of Sunday writers, and more might be given. But this is sufficient to prove two points, to wit:— 1. The letter from which the quotation is taken is spurious—a forgery. 2. The quotation itself contains no reference to the Lord's day. That is an interpolation. Thus by two frauds Ignatius is made to testify in favor of Sunday! His next witness is Theophilus, of whom he speaks as follows:— "Theophilus, a bishop, who lived a little later, says: ‘Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord's day, seeing that on that day our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead.’” This quotation is made from Dr. Edwards' Sabbath Manual. Neither Dr. Edwards, Dr. Benson, nor anybody else ever attempted to verify this pretended quotation. On this we give the following evidence:— "Dr. Edwards does not pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these words are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every paragraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state emphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He never uses the term Lord's day, and he does not even speak of the first day of the week. These words which are so well adapted to create the impression that the Sunday-Lord's day is of apostolic institution, are put into his mouth by the falsehood of some one."—Andrews' Hist. of the Sabbath, page 212. If Dr. Benson, or any of his indorsers, doubt the correctness of this statement, they have only to cite us to the place in the writings of Theophilus where his pretended quotation may be found. Will they please to do it? Next Justin Martyr is brought forward and made to testify as follows:— Justin Martyr, who was contemporary to Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, says: "On the Lord's day all Christians, in the city or in the country, meet together, because that is the day of our Lord's resurrection, and then we read the writings of the apostles and prophets." This quotation also contains a deliberate falsehood—not on the part of Dr. Benson, for he simply took it as he found it somewhere, but—on the part of the person who sent it out into the world in its present form. Justin Martyr never called the first day of the week the Lord's day. Christians early held meetings on the sixth day, on account of the crucifixion, and on the first day, on account of the resurrection; but they gave no Sabbatic honor, no title of honor, to either day, except that already given to the first day by the Pagans. Hence Justin Martyr calls it Sunday, and the day of the sun, but never Lord's day. Clement of Rome is quoted, but the quotation contains not a word or hint of that which is the subject of the proof. The Doctor admits that it is only inferred that he refers to the Sunday—it cannot be proved. Irenæus is made to testify, as follows:— "Irenæus, a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John, says: ‘On the Lord's day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating in the law and rejoicing in the works of God.’” Of this we have to say exactly as we said of the pretended quotation from Theophilus—it is purely a fiction, a "pious fraud," of which the literature of the Roman church has been so prolific, and in which, to their shame, many Protestants are quite ready to follow when Bible proof fails them. Sir William Domville, an able English writer, says of this very extract:— "I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenæus and can with certainty state that no such passage, or any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by Erasmus (Paris, 1563), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither do I find the passage in question." We only add further that Irenæus in no place calls the first day of the week the Lord's day, nor is it even mentioned in any of his writings.