I think it would appear from these passages that Irenæus was not in the habit of regarding the Christian practice of hallowing the Lord's day as the explicit fulfilment of the fourth commandment. He lived so near the apostolical times that he no doubt observed it in obedience to Christ's institution, without considering whether it was contemplated by the [pg 217] original institution of a holy day or not. But in common with other Christian writers, he did not think that the fulfilment of the fourth commandment lay in devoting any particular portion of time to the service of God; but in serving him continually as much as possible; and therefore, as a matter of course, in observing those times of sacred repose and divine worship which either the institution of Christ, or the common custom of Christians, or the rules of the Church, might have appointed[474]. [pg 218] According to such a feeling, therefore, whilst no particular portion of time would be kept with Jewish superstition, as though it were an end of itself, whatever time was kept would be so kept as to ensure the ends proposed by its observance.
And, if we revert to what has been before observed as to Irenæus's view of the law of liberty, we shall see that he would be so far from supposing that this Christian freedom authorized us to dispense with devoting one day in seven to God's service, that he would feel that it ought to lead those who had it in their power to devote even a larger portion. And such in fact was the practice of the Christians of those times. They assembled together not only on the morning and evening of the Sunday, but also throughout the east on the morning and evening of Saturday, and on the morning of Wednesday and Friday. When, therefore, there was so much zeal for the service of God, and the commandment was kept so amply in its spirit without thinking of the letter of it,—the warm feeling of Christians making them a law to themselves,—there was nothing to lead them to inquire critically how much the commandment actually required of them; and to have [pg 219] instituted such an inquiry would have appeared like putting a restriction upon the ardour of Christian love, and returning to the spirit of the Law of Moses.
The true question, then, to ask is, not why the first Christians did not put the Lord's day upon the footing of the paradisiacal sabbath, but why we are called upon to do so in these latter days? And the true answer will be found in the fact that the great body of us have abused the law of liberty, as the Israelites of old had done, and therefore, like them, have need, in the providential dealings of God, to be put back under rules and restrictions again, until we are become fitted to act as children of God: and when we are so, we have no wish to shake off such restrictions, but of our own accord go beyond them.
In connection with this subject it is very remarkable that the Church of England in her catechism has not thought proper to connect the Lord's day in particular with the fourth commandment; although most of our writers for the last three hundred years have found it necessary so to do. It is true that we have done no more than our duty by pointing out to our people that God from the beginning has hallowed one day in seven, in order to prevent them from relapsing into absolute heathenism;—the error has been that we have too much omitted to show [pg 220] that this was the least he would be satisfied with. We have too much written as though those who fully observed one day in seven had done their duty, instead of leading them to feel that they cannot be possessed of the spirit of true Christian obedience so long as they confine themselves to the letter of the law, and do not of their own accord embrace every means of grace and spiritual improvement.
Chapter XVII. On The Typical Interpretation Of Scripture.
The writers of the primitive Church, taking the lead from the inspired writers, and probably preserving in many cases the traditional interpretations of the Apostles, were in the habit of seeing types in many things which to us appear to have none but a literal meaning. It is, however, certain that there was a great tendency amongst the Hellenistic Jews to make the whole of the Old Testament typical; and no doubt some Christians early followed them, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (which were early writings, whether spurious or not) abundantly show: and this tendency continued to increase until the time of Origen, by whom it was pushed to such extremes, that, from that time, it became less popular.
Irenæus, however, is far from being a fanciful writer, and was more directly connected with the Apostles than most of the Fathers, and therefore the [pg 222] types which he recognises are worthy of much more attention than those of Origen.
With him, then, Abel was a type of Christ, as having suffered innocently[475]; Joseph[476] was a type of Christ, though in what way we are not told, probably in the same sense as Abel; Moses was a type of him when he spread forth his hands, and by that sign conquered Amalek[477]. That the brazen serpent was a type of healing man from the bite of the old serpent by faith, the words of Christ himself led him to see[478].