it is supposititious, is very fully proved by the learned and most reverend Primate of Armagh, and it is so notorious as nothing can be more; for the author of this epistle condemns that which St. Ignatius and his neighbour-churches did, and calls him "a companion of them that killed Christ, that keeps Easter after the manner of the Jews." But of this enough. But as to the thing; if the Lent fast were of apostolical institution, it were strange there should be no mention of it in the certain writings of the three first ages : not a word of it in Justin Martyr or St. Irenæus; in Tertullian or Clemens Alexandrinus, in Clemens Romanus's genuine epistle to the Corinthians, nor in St. Cyprian. There is indeed a little shred taken out of Origen's tenth homily on Leviticus; "Habemus enim quadragesimæ dies jejuniis consecratos," "We have the days of Lent designed for fasting." But concerning this I can only say, that the homilies were supposed to be St. Cyril's, written in the fifth age, and published in his name; but whoever be the author, 'he that wrote them, destroys the letter of the Scripture all the way, out of his own brain, and is a man of no great authority,' says Bellarminef; and therefore it remains certain, that, in the three first ages of the church, there was no mention made of the Quadragesimal or forty days' fast in Lent, and therefore it was not derived as a law or by rule from the apostles: but so strange a thing it was that there should be any common prescript fasts, that Apollonius accused Montanus for it; he was διδάξας λύσεις γάμων, καὶ νηστείας νομοθετήσας, "he taught the solutions of marriage, and made a law for fasting-days." 13. (5.) The Quadragesimal fast was relative and ever in order to the Easter feast; and therefore could not be before that, for whose sake it was appointed. But the feast of Easter was; and the Sunday festival was introduced by custom and arbitrary choice, for relaxation of labours, and the memory of Christ's resurrection; indeed it was at the beginning of the dissemination and prevailing of Christianity, but it was without a divine command, or an apostolical canon, if we may believe Socrates 8. Τὴν ἑορτὴν τοῦ Πάσχα οἱ ἄνθρωποι-ἕκαστοι κατὰ χώρας ὡς ἐβουλήθησαν-ἐξ ἔθους τινὸς ἐπε • Dissert. ad Ignat. cap. 12. De Verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 11. g Lib. 5. cap. 22. : τέλεσαν. Οὐ γὰρ νόμῳ τοῦτο παραφυλάττειν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἢ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν παρήγγειλαν, “The feast of Easter and other feasts, every man, as he pleased in several places, did out of a certain custom celebrate the memory of the salutary passion. For neither our Saviour nor the apostles appointed this by a law." For the apostles did not trouble themselves about making laws for feasts, ἀλλὰ βίον ὀρθὸν καὶ τὴν θεοσέβειαν εἰσηγήσασθαι, “but to introduce piety and a good life." The rest was permitted to the good-will of the churches, who, being sensible of the great benefits of Christ's passion and resurrection, would quickly introduce a custom of such a pious gratitude; and Nicephorus tells the same story, and in words very like. And the thing was not long in doing; it was so reasonable, so pious, so obvious, so ready and prepared, that at the very beginning all Christians did it, though, as it happens, in several churches after several manners. And supposing that these Greeks say true, yet it is no more lessening to the sacredness of that great feast, that the apostles did not intend to make laws concerning it, than it is to baptism, that St. Paul says, "Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel;" that is, though to baptize was a holy office, yet he was to attend something, that was greater, and required his diligence and presence. But this adds some moments to the sacredness of that great feast, that the apostles left it to the piety and good-will of the churches, as knowing that the Spirit of God, which they had received to this and greater purposes, was more than sufficient for the leading them into a specification of their piety and gratitude upon such great causes: and it was a very great matter, that instantly all churches did consent in the duty, without any law or common teacher, but the Spirit of God and right reason. The result of this consideration is this, that if the apostles left the celebration of Easter and other feasts to the choice and piety of the churches, it is not likely that they bound the Lent fast by a canon, since the Lent was always acknowledged to be a preparation for Easter, and was never heard of before there was a Christian Easter. But I may have leave to interpose my conjecture (for it is no more): I suppose Socrates by 'pascha,' does not mean the day of the resurrection, but the day of the passion; and that he Hist. lib. 12. cap. 32. intends only to say, that 'the solemnity of the Good Friday devotion, was not appointed by Christ and his apostles, but left to the piety and gratitude of the church. The reasons of my conjecture are these. 1. Because Socrates calls it μνήμην τοῦ σωτηριώδους πάθους “the memorials of Christ's passion;" which the Easter Sunday was not, but of the resurrection. 2. Because we find the word 'pascha' used by the ancient fathers in the same sense; τὸ πάσχα νηστεύειν, said Timotheus Alexandrinus, "to fast on the Pasch :"-so ἡ νηστεία τοῦ Πάσχα, St. Clement calls the Good-Friday fast, "the Paschal fast," meaning, that then began the Jewish Passover, and then Christ our passover was offered for us. So Tertullian1: "Sic et die Paschæ, quo communis et quasi publica jejunii religio est, merito deponimus osculum," &c. The day of the Pasch is a public and a common day for the religion of fasting; which because it was never true of Easter-day, and being always true of Good Friday, he must mean this. 3. Because it is very probable that the Easter festival was in use, though not commanded in the Apostle's time, therefore because they kept the memorial of the resurrection, the first day in every week; and therefore Socrates could not in all likelihood mean that day, but the 'pascha passionis," the paschal passion,' not the paschal resurrection. And then upon this account, though this fifth argument will not prevail, it is because we need it not; for whatever destroys the premises in this case, does establish the conclusion. For if by 'pascha' he means the Paschal fast, that is Good Friday, then he gives testimony, and that very consonantly to the prime antiquity, that it was left free, and undetermined by Christ and his apostles; but if he should mean the Easter feast, and did say true, yet it will follow from hence, that much more must the preceding fast be left undetermined. 14. (6.) If any man should say that kings are all created, as Adam was, in full stature and manhood, by God himself, immediately, he could best be confuted by the midwives and the nurses, the schoolmasters and the servants, of the family, and by all the neighbourhood, who saw them born infants, who took them from their mothers' knees, who gave them suck, who carried them in their arms, who made them coats i Lib. de Orat. cap. 14. * Vide lib. 2. chap. 2. rule 6. numb. 55, 56. and taught them their letters, who observed their growth and changed their ministries about their persons. The same is the case of the present article. He that says our Lent, or forty days' fast before Easter, was established by the apostles in that full growth and state we now see it, is perfectly confuted by the testimony of those ages that saw its infancy and childhood, and helped to nurse it up to its present bulk. 15. For it is not to be denied, but that from the very first ages of the Christian church of which we have any records, it was with sacredness and religion observed, that before the feast of Easter they should fast. Τὴν νηστείαν τοῦ πάσχα, St. Clement calls it ; τὰς παραδεδομένας νηστείας εἴς τε κοινὸν φυλασσομένας ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας: so the council of Gangra1 about the time of the Nicene council, "the fasts which were delivered in common, and observed by the church;"-τὰς ὡρισμένας νηστείας, “the appointed fasts," so Constantine called them. But this Paschal fast was nothing like ours, it was not our Quadragesimal; it was but a fast of one or two days at first, and in some places. For at first the Christians were very shy of receiving any love of ordinances and burdens to their consciences, as soon as ever they had entered into the liberty of Christians. They did all that reason and all that love would require: but if love was the parent of their observations, they would do them in love, and not in necessity, lest they should be again entangled in a yoke of bondage. That they kept their fasts with liberty, besides the foregoing testimonies, is expressly affirmed by TheodoretTM, who blaming the heretics that abstained from flesh and wine, as being abominable, "Ecclesia vero (saith he) de his nihil præcipit: neque enim horum usum interdicit. Ideo alii quidem permissis voluptatibus securi fruuntur, alii vero abstinent: et nemo qui recte sapiat, condemnat eum qui comedit; nam et abstinentia et participatio sunt in mentis potestate :" "But the church commands nothing in these things, and forbids not to use flesh and wine; and therefore some enjoy them freely, others do abstain, and no wise man condemns him that eats: for to eat or to abstain is in the power of every man's will."-Now, if the church had, from the apostles, received a law of the Lent fast, or if in the church there had been a law to command abstinence from flesh in Lent, it 1 Apud Socrat. lib. 2. Hist. cap. 3. m Lib. 5. Hæretic. fabul. cap. 29. had not been truly said of Theodoret, "Ecclesia de his nihil præcipit;" for a commandment for a time and a revolving period, certainly is a commandment. But this further appears in the variety, which is in all the actions and minds of men, when they are at their own choice. Of this a fragment of Irenæus, mentioned by Eusebius", is a great testimony: for there had been an unlucky difference between the western and eastern churches about their keeping of Easter, and Pope Victor was transported into heats upon the question, and received from St. Irenæus this sober advertisement, "For there is not only a controversy about the day of Easter, but about the kind of fasting. For some suppose they ought to fast but one day, others two, others more; some measure their day by forty hours of day and night. And this variety of them that observe the fasts, did not begin in our age, but long before us with our ancestors, who, as it is likely, retaining a custom introduced by simplicity and a private choice, did propagate it to posterity. And yet, nevertheless, all these lived peaceably one with another, and we also keep peace together; for the difference of the fast is so far from violating the agreement of faith, that it does commend it rather." Here was the Paschal fast observed by all men, but with great variety and a proportionate liberty. The cause of the variety was this, which was also the ground of their practice: they thought that the words of Christ, "When the bridegroom shall be taken from them, in those days shall they fast," were to be meant of the interval of Christ's death and burial, as we learn from Tertullian°. Now because it was but one whole day that Christ was in the grave, some fasted but one day, beginning on the Friday afternoon. Others consider that Christ was about forty hours dead, and the bridegroom was absent so long; and therefore reckoned their fast to forty hours, beginning from the ninth hour on Good Friday, and eating nothing till the morning of Easter-day: and this was the most severe and the most prevailing amongst them; and this is the Τεσσαρακοστή, ‘the Quadragesimal fast,' this gave occasion to the name, which was kept when the forty hours were changed into forty days, and new analogies and new reasons found out for it, and their fasting for the absence of the Bridegroom was changed into a fasting in imitation of Lib. 5. Hist. cap. 26. • Lib. de Jejun. cap. 14. |