Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

The devotion of two entire days in each week to the worship of God, could not universally be practicable among the Jewish con

verts.

The Gentiles were, in many respects, not more conveniently situated than the Jews. Among them, though there were numerous days devoted to the worship of the "Gods many, and Lords many," whom they served, the first day of the week was not held more sacred than the other. The laws of business and the forms of society must often have interfered with their regular attention to the services of the sanctuary. Those of them who were slaves, must often have been placed in the most trying circumstances of deprivation and exposure. Indeed, in countries where the appropriation of the Sabbath to religion is sanctioned or enforced by law, it is scarcely possible to form an idea of the situation of Christians where this is not the case. Allowances must be made in the one case, that ought not to be made in the other. And, perhaps, this is one of the reasons why there is so marked a difference between the enactments of the law and the gospel, in regard to the Sabbath.

Previously to the establishment of Christianity by Constantine, though we have frequent references to the first day of the week by the fathers and apologists of the church, it is noticed rather by the way, as the day on which believers publicly assembled for the worship of God, than as the day which was entirely consecrated to him. The celebrated passages of Justin Martyr, in which he describes the practice of the Christians, refer only to their public assemblies

"On the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country, meet together at the same place, where the writings of the prophets and apostles are read, as much as time will give leave; when the

reader has done, the Bishop makes a sermon, wherein he instructs the people, and animates them to the practice of such lovely precepts; at the conclusion of this discourse, we all rise up together and pray; and prayers being over, there is bread, and wine, and water offered, and the Bishop, as before, sends up prayers and thanksgivings, with all the fervency he is able, and the people conclude all with the joyful acclamations of Amen.” Upon Sunday," he says, again, "we all assemble, that being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark void, in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead; for the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day after, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples, and taught them what I have now proposed to your consideration."*

66

These passages only show that the Christians met together on the first day of the week, illustrate their public worship, and assign a reason for the observance of that day. But neither in these, nor in any other part of his apology, does he speak of their consecrating the day as the Jews did their Sabbath.

From a passage in the larger epistles of Ignatius, if admitted to be genuine, we find both Sabbath and the Lord's-day referred to, as observed by Christians; but with a very marked distinction made between them. "Let us not, therefore, any longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and please ourselves in days of rest. But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner; rejoicing in the meditation of the law, not in the rest of the body, admiring the creation of God. Not eating things prepared the day before, and

Apolog. Prim. Ilxxxvii. lxxxix.

drinking things lukewarm; and walking to a certain measure, and delighting in dancing an noises that have no sense in them. And after the observation of the Sabbath, let every lover of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival; the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week."*

There is here a very curious contrast between the Judaical Sabbath and the Christian; while both are treated as obligatory on Christians, neither is regarded as a day exclusively devoted to religious duty.

Clemens Alexandrinus, who Wrote in the end of the second century, speaks about the Lord's day in the same ambiguous manner with Ignatius, in the passage quoted from his smaller epistle. "He that doth lead his life according to the ordinances of the Gospel, then keeps the Lord's day, when he casts away every evil thought, and doing things with knowledge and understanding, doth glorify the Lord in his resurrection." This is much in the style in which the Friends would treat the subject.

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who lived much about the same time with Justin Martyr, tells Soter, the Bishop of Rome, in a letter addressed to him, "To-day we kept holy the Lord's day, wherein we read the epistles you wrote unto us, which we do always

Epist. ad Magnes ix. This we strongly suspect is one of the interpolated passages. The passage in the smaller epistles is as follows: Wherefore if they who were brought up in these ancient laws come, nevertheless, to the newness of hope; no longer observing Sabbaths, but keeping the Lord's day, in which, also, our life is sprang up by him, and through his death, whom yet some deny," &c. It is difficult to say what Ignatius means by the Lord's day in this place; he seems rather to refer to that period of spiritual rest, empha tically the day of the Lord, of which the Sabbaths, under the law, were symbolical.

N. S. No. 29.

read for our instruction, as also the first epistle written by Clemens." This only shows that they kept holy the Lord's day, by assembling on it. None of the passages quoted, convey any idea of the manner in which the Christians employed their time in private on that day.

In vain do we look to the apologies of Tertullian, where we might expect to find some information on this subject. References are made to the day, and to Christian assemblies, but no statement is given from which we might infer that the obligation to devote it wholly to the Lord was understood or attended to.

Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, speaks with approbation of Paula, a pious lady, who, with the women of the church, was iu the habit," as soon as they returned home on the Lord's day, of sitting down to work, and making clothes for themselves and others." From the language of Chrysostom to his hearers, it would seem as if this had been the general practice, of which he does not express his disapprobation.

[ocr errors]

It was not till the Christian Emperors began to enact laws respecting the Sabbath, that the religious observance of the first day of the week was brought into view; and from those very laws we perceive the imperfect ideas which had been and still continued to be entertained on the subject. The Lord's day then came to be enforced, not by the sanctions of divine authority, but by human laws and temporal penalties.

Through the reign of papal darkness and superstition, it is needless to trace either the sentiments or the practices of men. The Lord's day was regarded as one of the festivals of the church, dependent for its obligation on the

2 L

* Ad Eustap.

conscience, on her authority; and was observed, as it still is in every popish country, in a manner more indicative of heathen festivity than of Christian piety.

We are sorry to be obliged to observe, that many of the reformers, and of the reformed churches, took no higher ground than expediency or general agreement, and the authority of the church, for the religious observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations will show how it was viewed by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and other leaders of the reformation.

"We teach, that traditions are not to be condemned, which have a religious end, namely, that all things be performed in the church, decently, and in good order, and which command nothing, repugnant to the divine law; namely, traditions concerning holy-days, the Lord's-day, the feast of the nativity, Easter, &c And these divines approve, that saying in the Tripartit History li. 9.-It was not the Apostles' mind to set down laws concerning holy-days, but to preach godliness and a virtuous life.-Augustan. Confess. Sect. 16.

"We give not place to Jewish observations and superstitions: neither judge we that one day is holier than another, neither think we, that God taketh delight in resting from labour and we observe the Lord's-day, and not the Sabbath, according to a free choice, and not by divine precept.-Helvet. Confess. cap. 24.

"The ancient fathers substituted the Lord's-day, in place of the Sabbath, not without special reason. For it was the day of Christ's resurrection, and which finished all legal shadows and Christians were admonished by this alteration of the day, not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Nevertheless, I do not much insist upon the number of seven, that I would bring the church in bondage to that number: neither will I condemn Christian churches, which appoint other solemn days for religious assemblies, so as this be done without superstition.Calvin. Institut. li. 2. cap. 8. n. 34.

"Concerning the fourth commandment, I suppose it is agreed upon among Christians, that the same is abrogate so far as it was ceremonial; but not in such manner, as that the Lord's-day ought to be observed, according to the manner of

the Jewish Sabbath, &c. That Christians upon that day should abstain from their daily labours, besides such time of the

day as was appointed for public assemblies this was neither commanded in the apostles days, nor yet observed until Christian emperors enjoined the same, to the end people might not be abstracted from holy meditations: neither in those days was the same precisely or strictly observed.--Beza in Cant. Salom. Hom. 30.

Christian churches entertained the Lord's-day, not upon any commandment from God, but according to their free choice.--Idem. Decad. p. 2. Serm. 4.—Bullinger in Apoc. 1. 10.

of the week, to serve God, is not a mere device of man's brain, neither did it only appertain to Moses's law, but it had be ginning from hence. Genesis ii. Now, if you demand why this seventh day is not

"That people rest from labour one day

still retained in the church, our answer is, that we are to have all days such, as we may rest in them from our own works. But that one day be chosen for God's external worship, rather than another, the church had liberty from Christ, to establish that which it judged most convenient.--Pet. Mart. in Gen. ii.

"It is natural that there should be set and appointed days of resting from labour, and assembling together for God's service, &c. But the determination of these days, obligeth not the conscience in the New Testament, as it did in the Old; but only by reason of scandal and contempt. Neither are we so tied to certain days or times, but that in case of necessity, or if it shall be more commodious, we may alter these days and appoint other: neither are the days determined for religious duties, holier than other common days, in respect of any mystery, figure, or signification, but only in regard of discipline and order, &c. Idem. cap. 8. The Lord's-day from the apostles age, bath been a solemn day: notwithstanding, we find not the same commanded by any apostolical law; but it is collected from hence, that the observation thereof was free, because Epiphanius and S. Augustine testify, that on the fourth and the sixth days of the week, church assemblies were held, as well as upon the Lord'sday Melanct. loc. com. expos. 3. præcepti. Zanch. in 4. Præcept. cap. 19. pa. 610. We read in no place (of the New Testament,) that the apostles commanded the observation of this day; but what they and other believers were wont to do: and therefore they left free (to the liberty of the church) the observance of this day.Hospinian. d. Orig. Fest. cap. 2."

These extracts from the most. eminent men of the foreign reformed churches, or the symbolical books of the churches, which might be easily multiplied, express

no doubtful opinion; but distinctly place the observance of the Lord'sday on the ground of human authority. The following passages from the writings of some of our early reformers will prove that they entertained the same ideas, and took no higher ground.

[ocr errors]

"Our forefathers which were in the beginning of the church, did abrogate the Sabbath, to the intent that men might have an ensample of Christian liberty; and that they, might know, that neither the keeping of the Sabbath, nor of any any other day, is necessary. Howbeit, because it was necessary, that a day should be reserved, in which the people might come together, to hear the word of God, they ordained instead of the Sabbath, which was Saturday, the next day following, which is Sunday. And although they might have kept the Saturday with the Jews, as a thing indifferent, yet did they much better to overset the day, to be a perpetual, memory that we are free, and not bound to any day, but that we may do all lawful works to the pleasure of God, and the profit of our neighbours, &c. John Frith declar. of Bapt. p. 96. "We be lords over the Sabbath, and may change it into Monday, or any other day, as we see need. Or may make every tenth day holiday, only if we see cause why we may make two every week, if it were expedient, and one not enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday, than to put difference between us and the Jews, and lest we should become servants to the day, after their superstition.--Will. Tindal's Answer to More, cap, 25.

"Therefore be certain days assigned, that we should come together, not that, that day in which we come together, is holier than another, but all days are alike equal; and Christ is not only crucified in the Parascheue, and risen on the Sunday, but the day of resurrection is always; and always may we eat of our Lord's flesh.--D. Barnes Articl. p. 206."

That it may not be thought these were the sentiments of individuals only, the following extract from the Act of the Sixth of Edward the Sixth, will show, that the Lord's day was appointed to be observed in England, as one of the holy days of the church. After a considerable preamble, referring chiefly to the holy days of popery, it follows:

"Be it therefore enacted, that

all the days hereafter mentioned, shall be kept, and recommended to be kept holy days, and none other: that is to say, all Sundays in the year, the feasts of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Epiphany, of the Purification, and that none other day shall be kept and recommended to be kept holy day, and to abstain from lawful bodily labour."

re

We introduce these extracts for the purpose of showing how exceedingly imperfect were the views of the sacred obligation of the Lord's-day entertained by the body of the Reformers, and of the reformed churches. It is well known, that to this day the formed churches on the continent have not improved in this respect. They show, that there was but one opinion respecting the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, and, therefore, far as as their authority goes, the Sabbatarians have not an inch of ground to stand upon. But they also make it evident, that the argument derived from Scripture for the observance of the first day of the week was little understood.

[ocr errors]

To the English and Scotch Puritans, we are indebted for the first and fullest views of this iuteresting subject.

The second edition of the first work, which advocated at very considerable length those views which are tertained by serious Christiaus, now generally enof all denominations, lies before us. It is entitled, 66 Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti; or, the true Doctrine of the Sabbath, held and practiced by the Church of God, &c. By Nicolas Bound. 1606. 4to. pp. 479.

Without professing to agree, in all the sentiments contained in this learned and elaborate work, we do not hesitate to say, that it contains a better and more scriptural view of the subject than any work

known to us, which had been previously published. It places the observance of this day, as a day of holy and religious rest, on the only proper footing on which its authority can rest, that of the apostles of Christ. It occasioned a violent and long-continued controversy; the High Church party opposing most strenuously the doctrine contended for by Bound. This controversy, we are sorry to say, is not yet at an end. The work of Mr. Holden, now on our table, which discovers great research, and is distinguished for the serious tone which pervades it, takes no higher ground for the divine obligation of the Lord's-day, than the authority of the church. The following passages are adduced in illustration of this writer's opinion.

"Though concurring with a great part of this learned writer's (Horsley) statement, I must express my doubts whether a change as to the day of the Sabbath is necessary for the avowed purpose of protesting against Judaism. I own myself unable to see the grounds of such necessity, or, indeed, any foundation in the sacred Scriptures for an open protestation against the Mosaic dispensation. As far as it was typical, ceremonial, political, it, of course, expired by the introduction of a new faith; and, in taking upon ourselves the Christian profession, we only adopt the old covenant so far as it is ratified in the New Testament; but where are we required to protest openly against it? How does it appear that we ought to change the day of the Sabbath to show our dissent from Judaism? If it were necessary in the primitive ages, how can it be so now when that polity is abrogated? In short, I cannot perceive why a change of the day is called for in order to mark our dissent from the Levitical religion. The bishop's argument, therefore, in my apprehension, carries but little weight; at the same time, there are other grounds, some of which have been already stated, why, as we adopt a different faith from the Jews, we should adopt a different day for the Christian Sabbath.

"Many more reasons have been brought forward for the change from the last to the first day of the week, but I am compelled to abandon them as destitute of argumentative force. The chief grounds for the transfer are those already stated, and it must be acknowledged that they go

no further than to establish its EXPEDIENCY. Those ought not, therefore, to that neither the sabbatical enactments, be charged with incredulity who believe nor the practice of the apostles, amount to a proof of the religious obligation of devoting Sunday exclusively to a sacred rest. More, nevertheless, may be said in favour of that day than of any other; it was certainly chosen by the apostles; it was recommended by special tokens of our Saviour's approbation; it was unitians; and it is peculiarly eligible for the formly adhered to by the primitive Chrispious commemoration of our Lord's resurrection from the dead; the churches of God, therefore, do well in appropriating it to the public performance of religious duties.

"Differing in theory, as this does, from the opinion of those writers who hold the numerical day to be fixed by pretty much the same in its practical redivine and apostolical authority, it is sult. While I agree with them in the fitness, the peculiar fitness, of the first day of the week, I do not see it in the light of an imperative duty. Forcibly as this day is recommended to our adoption, I cannot perceive it to be unalterable; it is approved by our Lord, but not exclusively; sanctioned by the apostles, but not enjoined; so that room is left for any change which may become necessary by time and circumstances. The application of one day in seven to the exercises of devotion is a bounden duty; not so the appropriation of the first day of the week, which is rather a matter of prudence and propriety than of religious obedience. Yet it is a matter of propriety supported so strongly, that the most clear and convincing reasons alone can justify a departure; and any church would act very cuipably that should select any other day, without being impelled to it by a due regard to the character, the circumstances, and habits of the people. Still, as the day is not precisely fixed in the Scriptures, it may be altered whenever moral or political considerations exist sufficiently urgent to require a change."-pp. 270-274.

At present we cannot enter farther into this discussion; we reserve for our next number a statement, at greater length, of our views of the books before us. The importance of the subject, and the looseness of the sentiments, held by many on this subject, will be a sufficient apology for treating the subject at some length.

« ElőzőTovább »