DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
UNDER the head, "The Jewish Sabbath Abolished," the Doctor does himself as much discredit as in any point in his book. We might notice that he has placed himself in antagonism with the standards of his own church. But having so largely contradicted the Bible, we esteem it a small matter that he also contradicts the Methodist Discipline! In endeavoring to prove the abolition of the Sabbath he has made reference to but few scriptures, but in noticing those few he has been peculiarly unfortunate. He has made sad work with the word of inspiration to prove the entire abolition of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Recognizing the truth, evident to every reader, that no day is enjoined in the fourth commandment but the seventh day, in his zeal against the seventh day he has made an onslaught on the very existence of that commandment, as we propose to show. Then the reader will inquire, What ground of Sabbath obligation remains if the Sabbath of the decalogue is abolished? We leave the Doctor and his admirers to answer. If it is any satisfaction to them to sail with the "Disciples" of Alexander Campbell, or rather drift, into antinomianism, they are welcome to it. On this subject we much prefer the company of Wesley and Fletcher, of whose writings the Methodist ministers of this day seem to be unmindful if not altogether ignorant. "If we had been in the days of our fathers." We will erect a monument to Wesley and his associates, the champions of the authority of the law of God, while we feast on antinomian diet,—and thus put down Seventh-day Adventism! His first proof of the abolition of the Sabbath is found in Col. 2:16, 17. And the intelligent reader would never imagine where he finds the evidence in this text. It is in the fact that the apostle uses the genitive plural, sabbatone, the identical form that is used in the Septuagint in the fourth commandment! We have no words sufficient to express our astonishment that a sane man should present such a reason. It shows how hard pressed for argument are the enemies of the Sabbath of the Lord. Let us notice a few facts respecting the fourth commandment:— - It enjoins the observance of only the seventh day.
- It says the seventh day is the Sabbath, or rest day, of the Lord God.
- It says it became the Sabbath of the Lord because the Lord rested upon it when he made heaven and earth.
- It says that because the Creator rested upon it from the work of creation, he blessed and hallowed, or sanctified it.
These are facts quite beyond dispute, and they prove,- That the seventh day is not "the Jewish Sabbath," there being nothing peculiar to the Jews or to that dispensation in its origin and sanctification.
- That it is not a shadow or type—that it does not point forward to anything in the gospel. It is only a memorial of the Creator's work, established before sin entered into this world, and therefore it is not referred to in Col. 2:16, 17. There were three feasts in the Jewish system, two of them of seven days each, the first and last of which were sabbaths, in which no work was to be done. Also the day of atonement was a sabbath. These sabbaths all fell on a particular day of the month, coming annually. No regard to the day of the week was had in their observance. They are all enumerated in Lev. 23. In verses 37, 38, they are enjoined as feasts and holy convocations "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." The Sabbaths of the Lord were weekly—the seventh day of every week. The seventh day became the Sabbath, or rest day, of the Lord when the Lord rested from his work of creation. It is a memorial of that work. It was sanctified in Eden, before the fall. It is no more typical than is marriage; neither of these primeval institutions is affected by changes of dispensations. Both of them originated in the mind and will of God, whereas, all typical institutions grew out of the necessity of redemption—a necessity which arose from the rebellion of man. Did God institute the Sabbath, and bless and sanctify the seventh day because man was a sinner and needed a Saviour? Every one knows better than that. Why, then, will men of education, of scholarly attainments, professed teachers of the word of God, take such absurd positions? Why will professed followers of Christ let their prejudices and their worldly positions so sadly pervert their judgments?
The truth on this subject is easy to see. The seventh-day Sabbath—the Sabbath of the Lord God—is not referred to in Col. 2:16, 17. That text reads: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Meats, drinks, feast days, new moons, annual sabbath days, were in the Levitical law system, but not in the ten commandments. That was a system of types; there are no types in the decalogue. Dr. Justin Edwards, in the "Sabbath Manual," thus sums up on this text:— "So in the second chapter of Colossians. . . . The sabbaths spoken of are not 'the Sabbath' associated with, Thou shalt not commit murder, or adultery, or theft; but the sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were, indeed, shadows of things to come. But to take what he said of those sabbaths, which were associated by God with ceremonial laws, and which the apostle himself, in this very discourse, associates with them, and apply it, as some have done, to 'the Sabbath' which God associated with moral laws, is wrong." Reader, please examine the fourth commandment with care, and see what is in it which points forward to Christ. It no more relates to a plan of redemption than does the commandment against blasphemy, murder, adultery, and theft. It is no more typical than these. It is only a memorial of that which is past,—of that which existed before the fall of man, and would have continued to exist if sin had never entered the world, and the Saviour had never been required. Why will men perversely "darken counsel by words without knowledge?" But we must examine the Doctor's reason a little further. He uses the following language:— "The genitive plural is the form used ordinarily in the Greek. See the Septuagint, Ex. 20:8, and hemeran sabbatone occurs. We turn to Deut. 5:12, where the Decalogue is recited, and find the genitive plural in the Greek occurs. The text in the epistle to the Colossians is precisely the same, except that hemeran does not occur. Supply it before sabbatone, where it is a governing word, in the grammatical construction, in the sentence, and it is a verbal copy of the terms used in the decalogue. If Paul did not mean 'the day of the Sabbaths,' or the Sabbath day, it is unaccountable that he should have been so unguarded in his language." All this is said on the hypothesis that the form of the substantive determines the subject of the sentence. Also the idea is conveyed that sabbatone, genitive plural, can refer to nothing else but the seventh-day Sabbath—the Sabbath of the decalogue. But the hypothesis, the entire idea, is false and deceptive. The day of atonement was a sabbath. See Lev. 23:27-32. It fell always on the tenth day of the seventh month, without any regard to the day of the week. In the Septuagint of Lev. 23:32 the genitive plural is used. Nothing more can be required to show that the Doctor's position is a fallacy; and such a fallacy as any one with but a tithe of the Doctor's knowledge of the Greek can readily detect. But we have some proof still more striking. The subject is not determined at all by the form of the noun in the Greek, more than it is in the English, but by the construction and the context. As proof of this we state the fact, known to every reader of the Greek of the New Testament, that sabbatone, the genitive plural, is used ten times in the N. T., and in eight of these ten times hemeran is supplied, as in Col. 2:16, and it is then translated day of the week! Suppose we affirm that at Troas the disciples met on the identical Sabbath of the decalogue. We cite in proof that the same form, sabbatone, is used both here and in the decalogue. Then, disregarding the context, we conclude thus: "If Luke did not mean the Sabbath day, it is unaccountable that he should have been so unguarded in his language!" Were Dr. Benson an ignorant man, had he been deprived of the privilege or ability to fully examine this subject, we could find in that fact some excuse for what he has said; but as it is we cannot allow him even that refuge. We must say, only changing the subject of his own sentence:—"If the Doctor did not mean to deceive his readers, it is unaccountable that he should have been so unguarded in his language!" We will now turn to another text. On Gal. 4 the Doctor writes:— "Then, in writing to the Galatians the apostle reproves Christians because of their Jewish practices, 4:9-11. 'But now after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.'" We affirm that the apostle here refers to heathen practices, and not at all to Jewish practices. In Deut. 18:9-12, the observance of times is specified as one of "the abominations of the nations" in Canaan, and classed with divination, necromancy, witchcraft, etc., for which those nations were destroyed. It is possible that Dr. Benson is ignorant of this fact, as well as of the connection of the verses he quotes from Paul to the Galatians. It is quite evident that he has not examined this subject closely. The apostle wonders that, after they knew God, they should turn back to the bondage of their former practices. And what was their condition before they knew God? We learn this in verse 8—the one preceding the Doctor's quotation: "Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service to them which by nature are no gods." On this it is enough to ask a few questions:— - Was the observance of times specified in the Scriptures as a Jewish or a heathen practice? Deut. 18:9-12.
- Was the keeping of the ten commandments, or even the law of Moses, doing service to them which by nature are no gods?
- Are the ten commandments, or any of them, "weak and beggarly elements?"
- Does obedience to the ten commandments tend to bondage?
- Is it not evident that Dr. Benson is a very loose writer, and a very unsafe expositor?
We have never read more outspoken, rank antinomianism than the Doctor has furnished in his Sunday book. And yet once more, he disproves the obligation of the Sabbath by Gal. 5:19-21, quoting the apostle's enumeration of the works of the flesh. And then he comments:— "In this catalogue of the deeds of the flesh, no Jewish ordinance, obligation, or ceremony is mentioned, not even the seventh day as holy." We might exhaust our printer's exclamation marks on this, and then not do it justice. Look at this a moment, reader. Why is the seventh-day Sabbath not binding? Because Paul did not set it down as one of the works of the flesh! This is his statement. Shall we try to help him out of his most ridiculous position by supposing that he meant that Paul did not enumerate Sabbath breaking among the works of the flesh? If that were his statement, it would be deceptive. He did not specify, in his enumeration, blasphemy, dishonoring parents, nor covetousness. Are these not works of the flesh? Why did Paul leave them out? He did not. After his enumeration, he added,—"and such like." When reference is made to violations of part of the ten commandments, "and such like" refers to the violations of the rest of them. If not, then the argument proves that blasphemy, covetousness, and others, are allowable. Where is Methodism drifting, that Methodists publish and recommend such antinomian heresies? such bold attacks against the fourth commandment? Bear in mind that in his argument on Col. 2, he applies verses 16, 17, directly against the fourth commandment. If the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is abolished, where is found any basis for Sabbath obligation? It does not exist. We have before shown the fallacy of his positions in favor of Sunday. The truth is, and it is well to recognize it, that when the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is removed, we have no means to reach the conscience of the Sabbath breaker. We could fill our columns with admissions of Sunday-keeping authors to prove that there is no divine law for Sunday observance. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment "is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." It is never called by any other name. The only reason given in the fourth commandment for its Sabbath is the work of creation and the Creator's resting on the seventh day. The sacredness of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is found in the act of Jehovah in blessing and sanctifying the seventh day—the day of His rest. It is this Sabbath—the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the Sabbath of the Lord God—against which Dr. Benson wages his warfare, endorsed by the great Methodist denomination! "How has the fine gold become dim!" A little attention to his history will end our notice of his remarkable work.