But even supposing the fast of forty days to have been kept by some persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it. Chrysostom indeed expressly says[459], that the fast of forty days was not ordained [pg 210] until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the Communion on Easter day.
Very little more remains to be observed under this head.
Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a bishop[460]. And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely, that of Churchmen[461]. And that was perfectly natural, for the Church had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of Catholicism or Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and heresies, was not observed till afterwards; and therefore the name of Catholic was posterior to that of Churchman.
Chapter XVI. On The Sabbath.
One of the greatest difficulties to modern readers in the history of the primitive Church is the state of feeling and opinion on the subject of the Sabbath. We have been in the habit of arguing from the primitive institution of a holy day (which we have called a sabbath), and of viewing the Lord's day as answering to it; and if we may judge by the language of the earliest writers, they did not consider the Lord's day as intended to be a sabbath in itself, although some of them regarded it as being appointed instead of the Sabbath[462]. Irenæus certainly [pg 212] viewed the institution of the Sabbath as entirely Mosaical, and thought that Abraham and the patriarchs before the Law did not keep it[463].
It must not, however, be thence hastily concluded that he believed that Abraham and the patriarchs knew nothing of the seventh day as a day of divine worship. The primary and leading idea of a sabbath, properly so called, is (not holiness but) rest; that is, abstinence from any employment that can be construed into labour. Now Irenæus might very well deny that the Patriarchs kept a day of rest from all employment, without in any degree intending to deny that they devoted the seventh day especially to religious worship.
An illustration of my meaning will be found in the admission of Justin Martyr, that Christians did not keep the Sabbath[464], coupled with the well-ascertained fact[465], that a very large proportion of them [pg 213] indeed were in the habit of attending divine service on the seventh day. Perhaps a still closer illustration is seen in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, which expressly forbid Christians to keep the Sabbath like Jews[466], and at the same time direct the Eucharistic offering to be made on that day as well as on the Lord's day[467]. If then many of the early Christians devoted a portion of the Saturday statedly to public religious exercises, and yet did not consider themselves as keeping a sabbath, it would be very unsafe to infer from the assertion that the Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath, that therefore they had no day of religious worship. In fact it seems scarcely possible that the division and numbering of the days by sevens could have been kept up, as we know it was[468], before the giving of the Law, without some religious observance connected with it.
Although, then, Irenæus did not regard the Mosaical Sabbath as being observed before the giving of the Law, and consequently regarded it as abolished with the Law, yet as he has asserted that the moral [pg 214] law or decalogue was observed before Moses, and implies that we are not at liberty to reject it[469], it is very certain that he must have conceived the fourth commandment to be in some sense or other a directory to Christians: and it may therefore be inquired what he conceived ought to be learnt from it. This may in some degree be gathered from his saying that the Sabbath, like the whole Jewish Law, was symbolical, and that it was intended to teach men to serve God every day, and to typify the kingdom of God, when whosoever has persevered in godliness shall partake of his table[470]. For he believed that the world was destined to endure in [pg 215] its present state as many thousands of years as the days of creation, and that then God's kingdom would be set up on earth[471], which will be the true sabbath of the just[472]. But he regarded our Lord's apparent relaxation of the stringency of the sabbath, not as a direct instruction to Christians, but as an explanation of the proper meaning of the fourth commandment as addressed to the Jews[473].