Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

same apostle, Rom. xiv. 5, one man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike: let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' For since, as was observed above, no particular place is designated under the gospel for the public worship of God, there seems no reason why time, the other circumstance of worship, should be more defined. If Paul had not intended to intimate the abolition of all sabbaths whatever, and of all sanctification of one day above another, he would not have added in the following verse, he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.' For how does he not regard the day to the Lord, if there be any commandment still in force by which a particular day, whether the Sabbath or any other, is to be observed?

[ocr errors]

"It remains to be seen on what they ground their opinion, who maintain that the Lord's Day is to be observed as set apart for public worship by divine institution, in the nature of a new sabbath. It is urged, first, that God rested on the seventh day. This is true; and with reason, inasmuch as he had finished a great work, the creation of heaven and earth: if then we are bound to imitate him in his rest, without any command to that effect (and none has yet been produced), we are equally bound to imitate his work, according to the fable of Prometheus of old; for rest implies previous labour. They rejoin, that God hallowed that day. Doubtless he hallowed it, as touching himself, for 'on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed,' Exod. xxxi. 17, but not as touching us, unless he had added an express commandment to that effect; for it is by the precepts, not by the example, even of God himself that we are bound. They affirm again, that the sabbath was observed previously to the Mosaic law. This is asserted with more confidence than probability; even if it were so, however (a point as to which we are altogether ignorant), it is equally certain that sacrificial rites, and distinctions between things clean and unclean, and other similar observances, were in force during the same period, which nevertheless are not classed among moral duties.

"They urge, however, that the celebration of the Sabbath was subsequently ordained by the Fourth Commandment. This is true, as regards the seventh day; but how does this apply to the first day? If, on the plea of a divine command, they impose upon us the observance of a particular day, how do they presume, without the authority of a divine command, to substitute another day in its place? or in other words to pronounce, that not merely the seventh day, which was appointed for the observation of the Israelites alone, but any one of the seven may, even on the authority of the Fourth Commandment itself, be kept holy; and that this is to be accounted an article of moral duty among all nations.

"In the first place, I do not see how this assertion can be established, for it is impossible to extort such a sense from the words of the commandment; seeing that the reason for which the command itself was originally given, namely, as a memorial of God's having rested from the creation of the world, cannot be transferred

from the seventh day to the first; nor can any new motive be substituted in its place, whether the resurrection of our Lord or any other, without the sanction of a divine commandment. Since then it is evident from more than one passage of Scripture, that the original Sabbath is abrogated, and since we are nowhere told that it has been transferred from one day to another, nor is any reason given why it should be so transferred, the Church, when she sanctioned a change in this matter, evinced, not her obedience to God's command (inasmuch as the command existed no longer), but her own rightful liberty; for in any other view it can only be termed folly. To make any change whatever in a commandment of God, whether we believe that commandment to be still in force or not, is equally dangerous, and equally reprehensible; inasmuch as in so doing we are either annulling what is not yet repealed, or reenacting what is obsolete. It ought also to be shown what essential principle of morality is involved in the number seven; and why, when released from the obligation of the Sabbath, we should still be bound to respect a particular number possessing no inherent virtue or efficacy. The only moral sabbatical rest which remains for us under the gospel, is spiritual and eternal, pertaining to another life rather than the present. Heb. iv. 9-11: "There remaineth, therefore, a rest to the people of God; for he that hath entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his; let us labour, therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.' If, then, the commandment of the Sabbath was given to those alone whom God had brought out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, it is evidently inapplicable to us as Christians; or if, as is contended, it is applicable to us inasmuch as we have been brought out of the slavery of a spiritual Egypt, the Sabbath ought to be such as the deliverance, spiritual and evangelical, not bodily and legal; above all, it ought to be a voluntary, not a constrained observance, lest we should be merely substituting one Egyptian bondage for another; for the Spirit cannot be forced. To contend therefore that what, under the new dispensation, ought to be our daily employment, has been enjoined as the business of the Sabbath exclusively, is to disparage the gospel worship, and to frustrate rather than enforce the commandments of God.

"It is urged, however, that the Church relies on the Fourth Com mandment as its perpetual authority for the observance of public worship. That public worship is commended, and inculcated as a voluntary duty, even under the gospel, I allow; but that it is a matter of compulsory enactment, binding on believers from the authority of this commandment, or of any Sinaitical precept whatever, I deny. With regard to the doctrine of those who consider the Decalogue as a code of universal morality, I am at a loss to understand how such an opinion should ever have prevailed; these commandments being evidently nothing more than a summary of the whole Mosaic law, as the fourth in particular is of the whole ceremonial law; which therefore can contain nothing applicable to the gospel worship.

"Whether the festival of the Lord's day (an expression which occurs only once in Scripture, Rev. i. 10.) was weekly or annual, cannot be pronounced with certainty, inasmuch as there is not (as in the case of the Lord's Supper) any account of its institution, or command for its celebration, to be found in Scripture. If it was the day of his resurrection, why, we may ask, should this be considered as the Lord's day in any higher sense than that of his birth, or death, or ascension? why should it be held in higher consideration than the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit? and why should the celebration of the one recur weekly, whereas the commemoration of the others is not necessarily even annual, but remains at the discretion of each believer?

"Neither can the circumstance of Christ's having appeared twice to his disciples on this day (if indeed the words after eight days, John xx. 26, are rightly interpreted the eighth day after) be safely adduced in proof of the divine institution of a new Sabbath; inasmuch as there can be no doubt that he appeared on other days also. Luke xxiv. 36, and John xxi. 3, 4: Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing,' which was not lawful on the Sabbath; so that the day following, on the morning of which Christ appeared, could not have been the first day of the week. Even supposing, however, that it had been so, still the assigning this as a reason for the institution of a new Sabbath is matter solely of human inference; since no commandment on this subject, nor any reason for such institution, is found in all Scripture.

6

"From commandments, of which we have proved the non-existence, we pass to examples; although no example can weaken the force of a contrary precept. We shall proceed, however, to prove that what are adduced as examples are not such in reality. First, then, with regard to Acts xx. 7, where it is related that the disciples dwelling at Troas came together to break bread upon the first day of the week,' who shall determine with certainty whether this was a periodical meeting, or only held occasionally, and of their own accord; whether it was a religious festival, or a fraternal meal; whether a special assembly convoked on that particular day, or a daily meeting like those recorded in chap. ii. 42, compared with ver. 46; lastly, whether this meeting was held by order of the apostles, or whether it was merely permitted by them in compliance with the popular custom, according to their frequent practice on other occasions?

"The inference deduced from 1 Cor. xvi. 2, is equally unsatisfactory; for what the apostle is here enjoining, is not the celebration of the Lord's Day, but that on the first day of the week (if this be the true interpretation of κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, per unam sabbathorum) each should lay by him (that is at home) for the relief of the poor; no mention being made of any public assembly, or of any collection at such assembly, on that day. He was perhaps led to select the first day of the week, from the idea that our alms ought to be set aside as a kind of first-fruits to God, previous to satisfying other demands; or because the first day of the week was

most convenient for the arrangement of the family accounts. Granting, however, that the Corinthians were accustomed to assemble on that day for religious purposes, it no more follows that we are bound to keep it holy in conformity with their practice, without a divine command to that effect, than that we are bound to observe the Jewish Sabbath in conformity with the practice of the Philippians, or of Paul himself. Acts xvi. 13: 'on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made.' xvii. 2: Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbathdays reasoned with them out of the Scripture.' xviii. 3, 4: he abode with them and wrought. and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath ;' following his own occupation at home, as we have reason to believe, during the six remaining days.

[ocr errors]

"Those therefore who, on the authority of an expression occuring only once in Scripture, keep holy a Sabbath-day, for the consecration of which no divine command can be alleged, ought to consider the dangerous tendency of such an example, and the consequences with which it is likely to be followed in the interpretation of Scripture.

"Hence we arrive at the following conclusions:-First, that under the Gospel no one day is appointed for divine worship in preference to another, except such as the Church may set apart of its own authority for the voluntary assembling of its members, wherein, relinquishing all worldly affairs, we may dedicate ourselves wholly to religious services, so far as is consistent with the duties of charity; and, secondly, that this may conveniently take place once every seven days, and particularly on the first day of the week; provided always that it be observed in compliance with the authority of the Church, and not in obedience to the edicts of the magistrate; and likewise that a snare be not laid for the conscience by the allegation of a divine commandment, borrowed from the Decalogue; an error against which St Paul diligently cautions us, Col. ii. 16, 'let no man therefore judge you,' &c. For if we under the Gospel are to regulate the time of our public worship by the prescriptions of the Decalogue, it will surely be far safer to observe the seventh day, according to the express commandment of God, than on the authority of mere human conjecture to adopt the first. I perceive also that several of the best divines, as Bucer, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Ursinus, Gomarus, and others, concur in the opinions above expressed."

168. CAVE, WILLIAM, D.D., Vicar of Isleworth (born 1637; died 1713).—Primitive Christianity; or, the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the first ages of the Gospel. Lond. 1675. 8vo.

Cave, though a credulous and not very judicious writer, continues to be read; and from his intimate acquaintance with the works of the Fathers, we may regard his chapter, "Of the Lord's-day, and the Fasts and Festivals of the Ancient Church," as, on the whole, a

true account of the opinions and practice of the early Christians, (Part 1., chap. vii.). There is one rather loose statement near the beginning of the chapter-namely, that Justin Martyr "assures us" that the resurrection of Christ was the true origin of the title of the Lord's Day; in proof of which, Cave adduces the last paragraph quoted above, p. 4, in the note; by turning to which it will be seen, that "the Lord's day" is not so entitled by Justin at all, and that the leading reason assigned for assembling on Sunday" is, that God created the world on the first day of the week. Cave adds, that the early Christians "by this means observed a kind of analogy and proportion with the Jewish Sabbath which had been instituted by God himself."

[ocr errors]

"They looked upon the Lord's Day," says he, "as a time to be celebrated with great expressions of joy, as being the happy memory of Christ's resurrection, and accordingly restrained whatever might savour of sorrow and sadness. Fasting on that day they prohibited with the greatest severity, accounting it utterly unlawful, as Tertullian informs us (De Cor. Mil. c. 3, p. 102.). It was a very bitter censure that of Ignatius (or whosesoever that epistle was, for certainly it was not his), that whoever fasts on a Lord's Day is a murderer of Christ (Ep. ad Philip. p. 112). However, it is certain that they never fasted on those days, no not in the time of Lent itself; nay, the Montanists, though otherwise great pretenders to fasting and mortification, did yet abstain from it on the Lord's Day. (Tertul. De Jejun. c. 15.).”

After mentioning the laws of the emperors Constantine and Theodosius respecting it, and some later ecclesiastical enactments against conventicles, he proceeds:—

"Next to the Lord's Day, the Sabbath, or Saturday (for so the word Sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the Fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians), was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. For which we are to know, that the Gospel in those parts mainly prevailing amongst the Jews, they being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the Sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself (as the memorial of his rest from the work of creation), settled by their great master Moses, and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loath that it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. For this reason it seemed good to the prudence of those times (as in others of the Jewish rites, so in this) to indulge the humour of that people, and to keep the Sabbath as a day for religious offices. Hence they usually had most parts of divine service performed upon that day, they met together for public prayer, for reading the Scriptures, celebration of the sacraments, and such like duties. This is plain not only from some passages in Ignatius, and Clemens's Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexan

« PreviousContinue »