This father was born “somewhere between A. D. 120 and A. D.
140.” He was “bishop of Lyons in France during the latter quarter of the
second century,” being ordained to that office “probably about A.D. 177.”
His work Against Heresies was written “between A. D. 182 and A. D. 188.”
First-day writers assert that Irenaeus “says that the Lord's day was the
Christian Sabbath.” They profess to quote from him these words: “On the
Lord's day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law
and rejoicing in the works of God.”
No such language is found in any of the writings of this father. We will quote
his entire testimony respecting the Sabbath and first-day, and the reader can
judge. He speaks of Christ's observance of the Sabbath, and shows that he did
not violate the day. Thus he says:
“It is clear, therefore, that he loosed and vivified those
who believe in him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when he
healed upon the Sabbath day. For the law did not prohibit men from being
healed upon the Sabbaths; [on the contrary] it even circumcised them upon that
day, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for
the people; yea, it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at
Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did he perform cures upon the
Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to him on the Sabbath days.
For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is, from
all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly
business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which
consist in reflection, and to addresses of beneficial kind for their
neighbor's benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed
him for having healed upon the Sabbath days. For he did not make void, but
fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating
God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering
death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return
without fear to his own inheritance. And again, the law did not forbid those
who were hungry on the Sabbath days to take food lying ready at hand: it did,
however, forbid them to reap and to gather into the barn.” - Against
Heresies, b.iv. chap.viii. sects. 2, 3.
The case of the priests on the Sabbath he thus presents:
“And the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath, and
were blameless. Wherefore, then, were they blameless? Because when in the
temple they were not engaged in secular affairs, but in the service of the
Lord, fulfilling the law, but not going beyond it, as that man did, who of his
own accord carried dry wood into the camp of God, and was justly stoned to
death.” Book iv. chap. viii. sect. 3.
Of the necessity of keeping the ten commandments, he speaks
thus:
“Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the
necessity of following Christ, he does himself make manifest, when he replied
as follows to him who asked him what he should do that he might inherit
eternal life: `If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' But upon
the other asking, `Which?' again the Lord replied: `Do not commit adultery, do
not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor father and mother,
and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' - setting as an ascending series
before those who wished to follow him, the precepts of the law, as the
entrance into life; and what he then said to one, he said to all. But when the
former said, `All these have I done' (and most likely he had not kept them,
for in that case the Lord would not have said to him, `Keep the
commandments'), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, `If thou
wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor; and
come follow me,' promising to those who would act thus, the portion belonging
to the apostles. . . . But he taught that they should obey the commandments
which God enjoined from the beginning, and do away with their former
covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ.” Book iv. chap. xii.
sect. 5.
Irenaeus certainly teaches a very different doctrine from that
of Justin Martyr concerning the commandments. He believed that men must keep the
commandments, in order to enter eternal life. He says further:
“And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even
from the desires after them. Now he did not teach us these things as being
opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied
righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if he had
commanded his disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited.” Book
iv. chap. xiii. Sect. 1.
He also makes the observance of the decalogue the test of true piety. Thus he
says:
“They (the Jews) had therefore a law, a course of
discipline, and a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed,
warning them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning he had
implanted in mankind, that is, by means of the decalogue (which, if any one
does not observe, he has no salvation), did then demand nothing more of
them.” Book iv. chap. xv. Sect.1.
The precepts of the decalogue he rightly terms “natural
precepts,” that is, precepts which constitute “the work of the law”
written by nature in the hearts of all men, but marred by the presence of the
carnal mind or law of sin in the members. That this law of God pertains alike to
Jews and to Gentiles, he thus affirms:
“Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us
and to them (the Jews), they had in them, indeed, the beginning and origin;
but in us they have received growth and completion.” Book iv. chap.xiii.
sect.4.
It is certain that Irenaeus held the decalogue to be now binding
on all men; for he says of it in the quotation above, “Which if any one does
not observe, he has no salvation.” But, though not consistent with his
statement respecting the decalogue as the law of nature, he classes the Sabbath
with circumcision, when speaking of it as a sign between God and Israel, and
says, “The Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God's
service.” “Moreover the Sabbath of God, that is, the kingdom, was, as it
were, indicated by created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have
persevered in serving God shall, in a state of rest, partake of God's table.”
He says also of Abraham that he was “without observance of Sabbaths.” Book
iv.
But in the same chapter he again asserts the perpetuity and authority of the
decalogue in these words:
“Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in
his own person to all alike the words of the decalogue; and therefore, in like
manner, do they remain permanently with us, receiving by means of his advent
in the flesh, extension and increase, but not abrogation.” Section 4.
This statement establishes the authority of each of the ten
commandments in the gospel dispensation. Yet Irenaeus seems to have regarded the
fourth commandment as only a typical precept, and not a perpetual obligation
like the others.
Irenaeus regarded the Sabbath as something which pointed forward
to the kingdom of God. Yet in stating this doctrine he actually indicates the
origin of the Sabbath at creation, though, as we have seen, elsewhere asserting
that it was not kept by Abraham. Thus, in speaking of the reward to be given the
righteous, he says:
“These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that
is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from
all the works which he created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, in
which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a
table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of
dishes.” Book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2. And he elsewhere says: “In as many
days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded.
. . . For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years: and in six days created
things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end
at the sixth thousand year.” Book v. chap. xxviii. sect. 3.
Though Irenaeus is made by first-day writers to bear a very
explicit testimony that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, the following, which
constitutes the seventh fragment of what is called the “Lost Writings of
Irenaeus,"” is the only instance which I have found in a careful search
through all his works in which he even mentions the first day. Here is the
entire first-day testimony of this father:
“This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a
symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace
of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death under him.
Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as the blessed Irenaeus,
the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in his treatise On Easter, in which
he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the
knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord's day, for the reason
already alleged concerning it.”
This is something very remarkable. It is not what Irenaeus said
after all, but is what an unknown writer, in a work entitled Quoes et Resp. ad
Othod., says of him. And all that this writer says of Irenaeus is that he
declares the custom of not kneeling upon Sunday “took its rise from apostolic
times”! It does not even appear that Irenaeus even used the term Lord's day as
a title for the first day of the week. Its use in the present quotation is by
the unknown writer to whom we are indebted for the statement here given
respecting Irenaeus. And this writer, whoever he be, is of the opinion that the
Pentecost is of equal consequence with the so-called Lord's day!. And well he
may so judge, inasmuch as both of these Catholic festivals are only established
by the authority of the church. The testimony of Irenaeus in behalf of Sunday
does therefore amount simply to this: That the resurrection is to be
commemorated by “not bending the knee upon Sunday”!
The fiftieth fragment of the “Lost Writings of Irenaeus” is
derived from the Nitrian Collection of Syriac MSS. It relates to the
resurrection of the dead. In a note appended to it the Syriac editor says of
Irenaeus that he “wrote to an Alexandrian to the effect that it is right, with
respect to the feast of the resurrection, that we should celebrate it upon the
first day of the week.” No extant writing of Irenaeus contains this statement,
but it is likely that the Syriac editor possessed some portion of his works now
lost. And here again it is worthy of notice that we have from Irenaeus only the
plain name of “first day of the week.” As to the manner of celebrating it,
the only thing which he sets forth is “not bending the knee upon Sunday.”
In the thirty-eighth fragment of his “Lost Writings” he
quotes Col.2:16, but whether with reference to the seventh day, or merely
respecting the ceremonial sabbaths, his comments do not determine. We have now
given every statement of Irenaeus which bears upon the Sabbath and the Sunday.
It is manifest that the advocates of first-day sacredness have made Irenaeus
testify in its behalf to suit themselves. He alludes to the first day of the
week once or twice, but never uses for it the title of Lord's day or Christian
Sabbath, and the only thing which he mentions as entering into the celebration
of the festival was that Christians should not kneel in prayer on that day! By
first-day writers, Irenaeus is made to bear an explicit testimony that Sunday is
the Lord's day and the Christian Sabbath! And to give great weight to this
alleged fact, they say that he was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the
disciple of John: and whereas John speaks of the Lord's day, Irenaeus, who must
have known what he meant by the term, says that the Lord's day is the first day
of the week! But Polycarp, in his epistle, does not even mention the first day
of the week, and Irenaeus, in his extended writings, mentions it only twice, and
that in “lost fragments” preserved at second hand, and in neither instance
does he call it anything but plain “first day of the week.” And the only
honor which he mentions as due this day is that the knee should not be bent upon
it! And even this was not spoken of every Sunday in the year, but only of
“Easter Sunday,” the anniversary of Christ's resurrection!
Here we might dismiss the case of Irenaeus. But our first-day
friends are determined at least to connect him with the use of Lord's day as a
name for Sunday. They, therefore, bring forward Eusebius, who wrote 150 years
later than Irenaeus, to prove that he did call Sunday by that name. Eusebius
alludes to the controversy in the time of Irenaeus, respecting the annual
celebration of Christ's resurrection in what was called the festival of the
passover. He says (Eccl.Hist. b. v. chap. xxiii.) that the bishops of different
countries, and Irenaeus was of the number, decreed that the mystery of our
Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord's day;
and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts, and
not on the fourteenth of the first month as practiced by the other party. And in
the next chapter, Eusebius represents Irenaeus as writing a letter to this
effect to the Bishop of Rome. But observe, Eusebius does not quote the words of
any of these bishops, but simply gives their decisions in his own language.
There is therefore no proof that they used the term Lord's day instead of first
day of the week. But we have evidence that in the decision of this case which
Irenaeus sent forth, he used the term “first day of the week.” For the
introduction to the fiftieth fragment of his “Lost Writings,” already
quoted, gives an ancient statement of his words in this decision, as plain
“first day of the week.” It is Eusebius who gives us the term Lord's day in
recording what was said by these bishops concerning the first day of the week.
In his time, A. D. 324, Lord's day had become a common designation of Sunday.
But it was not such in the time of Irenaeus, A. D. 178. We have found no writer
who flourished before him who applies it to Sunday; it is not so applied by
Irenaeus; and we shall find no decisive instance of such use till the close of
the second century.
[Top]
This father, about A. D. 170, wrote a letter to the Roman
church, in which are found these words:
“We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your
letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw
admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written
through Clement.”
This is the earliest use of the term Lord's day to be found in
the fathers. But it cannot be called a decisive testimony that Sunday was thus
called at this date, inasmuch as every writer who precedes Dionysius calls it
“first day of the week,” “eighth day,” or “Sunday,” but never once
by this title; and Dionysius says nothing to indicate that Sunday was intended,
or to show that he did not refer to that day which alone has the right to be
called “the Lord's holy day.” Isa.58:13. We have found several express
testimonies to the sacredness of the Sabbath in the writers already examined.
[Top]
This father wrote about A. D. 177. We have nothing of this
writer except the titles of his books, which Eusebius has preserved to us. One
of these titles is this: “On the Lord's Day.” But it should be remembered
that down to this date no writer has called Sunday the Lord's day; and that
every one who certainly spoke of that day called it by some other name than
Lord's day. To say, therefore, as do first-day writers, that Melito wrote of
Sunday, is to speak without just warrant. Moreover the word “day” is omitted
in the original Greek of Eusebius. It is not certain, therefore, that Melito
wrote of the Lord's day. He wrote of something pertaining to the Lord. It may
have been the Lord's Supper, as Paul wrote, or the Lord's life, as wrote
Ignatius.
[Top]
Bardesanes, the Syrian, flourished about A. D. 180. He belonged
to the Gnostic sect of Valentinians, and abandoning them, “devised errors of
his own.” In his “Book of the Laws of Countries,” he replies to the views
of astrologers who assert that the stars govern men's actions. He shows the
folly of this by enumerating the peculiarities of different races and sects. In
doing this, he speaks of the strictness with which the Jews kept the Sabbath. Of
the new sect called Christians, which “Christ at his advent planted in every
country,” he says:
“On one day, the first of the week, we assemble ourselves
together, and on the days of the readings we abstain from [taking]
sustenance.”
This shows that the Gnostics used Sunday as the day for
religious assemblies. Whether he recognized others besides Gnostics, or
Christians, we cannot say. We find no allusion, however, to Sunday as a day of
abstinence from labor, except so far as necessary for their meetings. What their
days of fasting, which are here alluded to, were, cannot now be determined. It
is also worthy of notice that this writer, who certainly speaks of Sunday, and
this as late as A. D. 180, does not call it Lord's day, nor give it any sacred
title whatever, but speaks of it as “first day of the week.” No writer down
to A. D. 180, who is known to speak of Sunday, calls it the Lord's day.
[Top]
[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]
|
