If Tertullian was indeed a fair specimen of the Christian men of his time; if his writings have not been tampered with; and if the opinions of the men of his day, as expressed by himself, should have weight with us in the decision of religious questions, where shall we stop in our acceptance of their creeds? If, because they believed with him in the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, this fact should have weight with us in bringing us to the same conclusion, independently of Scripture proof, then how can we stop short of their faith in other particulars? such as the acceptance of tradition in doctrinal matters, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, etc., etc. In fact, how can we avoid becoming papists ourselves, in the largest sense of the term, since, having gone as far as we have for the purpose of making out Sunday sanctity, we have surrendered nearly all the distinctive principles of Protestantism?
Of course each individual is at liberty to use his own discretion as to the measure of confidence which he will give to the writings before us; so far as we are concerned, personally, we would not attach to them the slightest weight in the decision of a grave religious question. From the very nature of that which has been already cited, it is manifestly a serious slander upon the true church of the second, and the first part of the third century, to hold them responsible for the fanciful conceits and destructive errors of this reputed defender of the faith.
Certain it is, that if Tertullian is correctly reported, his writings are not a safe criterion of the sentiments of the Christians of his age in very many points, and it may be fairly concluded, that among them is that concerning the Sabbath, since what he has said of it finds no warrant in the open Bible, which the men of this day hold in their hands. Not only is what he has written absurd and dangerous in the extreme, but his productions are characterized by the most glaring contradictions. Another has said of him: “It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious, invectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticisms.” (Milman, in note on Gibbon’s Dec. and Fall of the Rom. Emp., chap. xv.)
We leave him, therefore, with his follies and foibles, his errors and faults, his assertions and contradictions, with those who have a taste for this kind of literature.
With the case of Origen it will not be necessary that much time should be consumed. Mr. Mosheim has well remarked of him, that had “the justice of his judgment been equal to the immensity of his genius, the fervor of his piety, his indefatigable patience, his extensive erudition, and his other eminent and superior talents, all encomium must have fallen short of his merits.” Unfortunately, however, with an erudition which was truly remarkable, he united a credulity almost without parallel. So numerous and so grave were the errors of his personal faith, that his individual opinions, unsupported by facts and arguments, are utterly worthless in the decision of any theological proposition. Having adopted the mystical system of interpreting the Scriptures, he reached conclusions utterly unsound and preposterous in many cases.
That this is so, the orthodox reader will at once perceive, when we state, first, that he was a believer in the pre-existence of the human soul, and that souls were condemned to animate mortal bodies, because of sins committed in a pre-existent state; secondly, that he was a Restorationist, and believed in the final universal salvation of all men, after enduring long periods of punishment. Nor does the advocacy of such sentiments furnish the only difficulty in the way of his testimony, as drawn from his writings now extant. There would indeed be some satisfaction derived from the study of these documents, fanciful though they might appear to be in many respects, if we could only feel assured that they represented correctly the sentiments of the alleged author.
Unhappily, this is not the case. Those who admire Origen most, while attributing much in what he is said to have written, to that weakness of discrimination which is everywhere so manifest in his productions, are compelled to go beyond this, in order to explain many of the grosser views therein contained, by admitting that they were not his own, but that they are the result of fraud and interpolation.
On this point, another, with great candor and friendly charity, when speaking of the sect known as Origenists, after first stating that “he was a man of great talents, and a most indefatigable student, but having a strong attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and a natural turn to mystical and allegorical interpretations, which led him to corrupt greatly the simplicity of the gospel, declares that these circumstances render it very difficult to ascertain exactly what his real sentiments were.” He says, also, “1. Being a man of unquestionable talents and high character, his genuine works were interpolated, and others written under his name, in order to forge his sanction to sentiments of which, possibly, he never heard.... 3. Origen had many enemies, who probably attributed to him many things which he did not believe, in order, either to injure his fame, or bring his character under censure.”—Encyc. of Rel. Knowl., Art. Origenists.
Having said thus much in reference to the testimony before us, it would be possible to take up the writings of this distinguished father, and show from them that there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether he believed that the so-called Christian Sabbath was indeed to be regarded as of twenty-four hours’ duration, merely, or whether it covered alike all days of the week, and the whole of our dispensation. This, however, would be a tedious and unprofitable expenditure of time and labor. We leave the whole question, therefore, respecting the teaching of the works of Origen, as one of no significance in this controversy; first, because if we know anything about what he did believe, he was wholly unreliable, either as a teacher of sound doctrine, or as a representative of the better men of his own time; and, secondly, because what he has written has been so corrupted, that we have no guarantee that it truthfully expresses what he believed.
As we presume the majority of our readers are not particularly interested in reference to which posture was assumed in prayer on the first day of the week, by the early church, and as Peter of Alexandria and the Council of Nice are quoted solely in reference to “this independent question,” we shall not discuss the note in which reference is made to them. There remains, therefore, only the case of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to occupy us longer. What this author says was written about A. D. 253. It will be observed, that in what is declared by him and the Council, the first day of the week is called the Lord’s day; beyond this, his testimony is of no value. It is neither stated that the title was applied by divine authority, nor is it affirmed that this day had superseded in Sabbatic honor the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.