|
The
Lord's Day Fourteenth
Question: The Lord’s Day Whether
the institution of the Lord's
day is divine or human; whether it
is of necessary and perpetual or of
free and mutable observance. The
former we affirm and the latter we deny (as
to both parts). I.
The Lord's day (kyriake hanera) in Christian usage is
applied to the first day of the week, appointed for the public worship
of God in memory of Christ's resurrection.
Now it is so called not so much with regard to the efficient (as
if it was formally instituted by Christ himself, as the Lord's Prayer
and the Lord's Supper are designated by the apostle, 1 Cor. 10:21).
As will be seen afterwards, no argument can be given for such
institution. With regard to
the end, it was instituted in memory of the resurrection of Christ,
which took place on this day (Mt. 28:1); and for his honor and worship
(as that is called "the Lord's altar," "the Lord's
festival" which was instituted for his worship), and the ancients
call temples dedicated to divine worship Kyras (or “the
Lord’s”). II.
Concerning this day, there are two principal questions: (1) what
is its origin; (2) what is the necessity of its observance?
As to the first, it is not asked whether a change was made of the
seventh day to the first by abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath (for this
is granted among Christians who acknowledge that this change could be
made by him who is Lord of the Sabbath), but both ought to be made and
was made most fittingly; that former day (on account of its ceremonial
part and what on that account pertained to the legal economy) ought to
be abrogated that another might be substituted in its place: another,
however, could not be more appropriately introduced under the new
covenant than that which is now called the Lord's day (on account of the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ on this day, the recollection of
which is most justly to be celebrated always in the Christian church,
since on it was most fully accomplished the work of our redemption and
of the new creation); that this might be a public monument of the
abrogated ceremonial law and of the distinction which ought to exist
between the Jews and Christians. Rather
the question concerns the principle and origin of this change-whether it
was only of human and political (or ecclesiastical) or of divine
ordination. III.
Here the opinions of theologians vary.
Some refer it to canonical right (as the papists do, who gather
from it also the necessity of unwritten traditions).
There are some among the latter who (according to Azorius,
Institutionum morales, Pt. 11, 1.2 [16131, pp. 12-16) contend for its
divine authority (as Anchoranus, Panormitanus, Angelus Sylvester).
Others refer it to political ordination (as the Remonstrants, who
in their Confession allege that the distinction of days was removed
under the New Testament, and the Socinians, who assert that its
observance is arbitrary, cf. Racovian
Catechism [18181, p. 220). Others
ascend to a divine ordination, so that either Christ himself may be said
to have immediately and expressly instituted that day, which Junius
holds ("Praelectiones in Geneses,' in Opera Theologica
[16131, 4:26-27 on Gen. 2:1, 2) and some others with him; or
mediately only inasmuch as the apostles inspired of God (theopneustoi)
sanctioned it in the Christian church by precept, example and their own
practice. This is the more
common opinion of the orthodox and to this we adhere. IV.
They who refer the origin of the Lord's day to Christ rely most
especially both upon the resurrection of Christ (who by rising on this
day from the dead seems to have consecrated it to his worship in memory
of that fact) and on the various appearances made after the resurrection
on this day when he showed himself to his assembled disciples (Jn.
20:19, 26; Rev. 1:10); also by the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the
apostles which is held to have occurred on this day.
Although these things may with probability be said and seem to
have given occasion for the institution of this day, still they cannot
make a strong and solid argument to prove it because it would require
some express command (or the example of Christ). V.
Far more properly, therefore, is it said to be of apostolic
institution. They
substituted the Lord's day for the Sabbath and commended it to the
churches, not without the special influence of the Holy Spirit by whom
they were infallibly directed to prescribe such things as not only
conduced to faith and morals, but also to the good order (eutaxian)
of the church and the performance of divine worship.
Now there are three passages in particular from which this
institution is gathered: (1) from Acts 20:7 -"And upon the first
day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." Why are the
apostles said to have assembled for the preaching of the word and the
administration of the eucharist, on this rather than on any other day
(or on the well-known Sabbath of the Jews), unless at that time the
custom of holding stated meetings had prevailed, the ceremony of the
Jewish Sabbath by degrees vanishing?
Nor ought it to be said that mian sabbat6n here designates
not the first day of the seven, but only one (i.e., some one of the
seven) because it is used in no other sense (Lk. 24:1; Mk. 16:2).
What is adduced from Lk. 5:17 (cf. 8:22) does not apply here
because it is one thing to say en mia ton haeren (which denotes
an indeterminate time), another to say en te mia with the article
which determines the day. VI.
(2) From 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, where not only the apostolic practice but also
a precept is introduced: "Now concerning the collection for the
saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in
store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I
come." The apostle wishes collections to be made by believers upon
each first day of the week (viz., on which their public assemblies ought
also to be held), which he draws from the custom of the Jews who,
according to Philo (cf. The
Special Laws 1. 14.76-78 [Loeb, 7:1451) and Josephus (Aj 18.312 [Loeb,
9:180-81]), on each Sabbath on which they were accustomed to assemble
used to make collections in the synagogues of tithes and other voluntary
offerings, afterwards sent to Jerusalem for the use of the temple and
the Levites. On account of
the persecution of the Jews, the advent of many strangers, and their
continual zeal in propagating the gospel, the church at Jerusalem was
greatly pressed by want and the apostle wishes believers to take up
collections for their benefit. As
therefore he orders collections on each first day of the week, so he
also is considered by parity of reason to have ordained the public
assemblies in which they were accustomed to be made (or to have approved
them by his vote as already ordained) VII.
(3) From Rev. 1:10, where John says that "he was in the
Spirit on the Lord's day"; not verily on the Jewish Sabbath because
he undoubtedly would have named it; not on some one day only of the
seven because thus the title would be ambiguous, calculated to confuse
rather than explain; but on that day on which Christ had arisen, on
which the apostles were accustomed to assemble to perform sacred worship
and on which Paul had ordered collections to be made, as was the custom
in the primitive church. Since
he speaks of that day as known and observed in the church, there is no
doubt that it had been distinguished by this name from the received
usage of the church. Otherwise,
who among the Christians would have understood what John meant by this
appellation, if he intended to designate some other day? VIII.
Second, he alone could change the Sabbath (either immediately and
by himself or mediately by the apostles) who is Lord of the Sabbath (Mt.
12:8). It was most fitting
that the day of worship should be instituted by him under the New
Testament (by whom the worship itself had been instituted and from whom
all blessing in all worship is to be expected). IX.
Third, if the Lord's day was constituted neither by Christ nor by
the apostles, the condition of the Christian church under the New
Testament would be worse than of the Jews under the Old.
Under the Old Testament a day was appropriated to rest from
secular labor in which to servants and beasts of burden was granted a
breathing time from servile work (Dr. 5:14), such as would not exist
under the New Testament. Everyone
sees this to be absurd, since far better is our condition in comparison
with their state who were pressed down by the unbearable (abastakt6)
yoke of the law. X.
Fourth, if the institution of the Lord's day is only of human
ordination (whether political or ecclesiastical, as a human constitution
circumscribed the necessity of public worship), it could be rescinded as
easily as it was enjoined. Nor
could the necessity of its observance be so strongly pressed, for thus a
profane person might dispense with it, not attend to prayer and
assemblies, and anyone might excuse himself for doing or neglecting
anything, if nothing could be elicited from the Scriptures to bind the
conscience besides a human appointment.
Prudently, therefore, and piously (in addition to the uniform and
uninterrupted tradition of the church), the apostolic sanction and
practice is urged that it may be evident that the church has done
nothing in an affair of so much importance which she has not received
from inspired men (theopneustois) and which on that account is
not of necessary observation. XI.
Fifth, it is favored by the authority of the fathers who were
nearest the age and times of the apostles.
Among whom is Ignatius (Pseudo-Ignatius, "Ad Magnesianos,"
9.4 in Patres Apostolici [ed.
F.X. Funk, 19131, 2:125; "Ad Trallianos,' 9.5, ibid.,
2:104-7); Justin Martyr (First Apology* 67 [ANF 1:185-86]); Dionysius of
Corinth, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical
History 4.23* [FC 19:2591); Melito, according to the same (Eusebius,
ibid., 4.26, p. 262); Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.23* [ANF 1:551-52]);
Tertullian (Chaplet [FC 40:237, 256]); Origen (cf.
In Exodum Homilia 7.5-6 [ PG 12.345-47 1) and not a few others.
Here belongs the law enacted concerning it by the Emperor
Constantine the Great (cf. Eusebius,
life of Constantine 4.18
[London: 1845], pp. 189-90), repeated and confirmed by succeeding
emperors-Theodosius, Valentinian, Arcadius, Leo and Anthemius* -by whom
the most severe penalties were imposed upon those who exhibited
spectacles on this day or gave themselves up to pleasure, as may be seen
in the 'Codex de feriis" (cf.
Corpus Iuris Civilis, II:
Codex Iustinianus 12.9 [ed. P
Krueger, 19681, p. 128). XII.
Most of our men assert the same thing.
Calvin says: "It is very probable that the apostles retained
in the beginning the day already observed, afterwards forced by the
Jewish superstition substituted another in the place of the one
abrogated" (in Acts 20+). Bucer
says: "The Lord's day was consecrated to sacred acts by the
apostles themselves" ("De Regno Christi,' 1.11* in Martini
Buceri Opera Latina [ed. F.
Wendel, 1955], p. 82). So
Beza maintains that this tradition is truly divine and made by the
apostles at the suggestion of the Spirit: "The services of the
Lord's day therefore, which Justin also in the Second Apology (sic!)
expressly mentions, are of apostolic and truly divine tradition" (Annationes
maiores in Novum ... Testamentum [15941, Pars Altera, p. 635 on Rev.
1:10). So Gallasius, a
colleague of Calvin and Beza: "We have received this as established,
that the Lord's day should be substituted in place of the Sabbath, not
by men, but even by the apostles, that is, by the Spirit of God, who
directed them" (In Exodum Commentaria [15601, p. 195 on Ex. 31).
Not otherwise Fayus: "Deservedly therefore we might have
said that the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit substituted
it for that seventh legal day which was the first in the creation of the
former world" (cf. "Theses
in quartum Legis,' 33*.12* in Theses
Theologicae in Schola Genevensi [1586], p. 66 [401).
Of the same opinion are Bullinger (A Hundred Sermons upon the
Apocalips [15611, pp. 29-30 on Rev. 1:10); Gualterus, homi. 162+ (on
Mt.); Junius ("Praelectiones in Geneses," in Opera Theologica
[1613], 1:26-61 on Gen. 2); Piscator in Aphor explic.
Aphor. 18+; Perkins, Ames, Hyperius (In Epistolam D.
Pauli ad Romanos et ... ad Corinthos [15831, pp. 331-32 on 1 Cor.
16:2); Wallaeus (Dissertatio de
Sabbatho 7* [16281, pp. 147,88); Voetius (Selectae
Disputationes [1667], 4:760-61) and not a few others. XIII.
Although the Lord's day may be said to be of apostolic
institution, the authority upon which it rests is nevertheless divine
because they were influenced by the Holy Spirit no less in sacred
institutions than in setting forth the doctrines of the gospel either
orally or by writing. Divine
ordination is, therefore, rightly claimed here; not indeed formally and
immediately by the institution of Christ, but mediately by the sanction
and practice of the inspired (theopneust6n) apostles. XIV.
Although certain ordinations of the apostles (which referred to
the rites and circumstances of divine worship) were variable and
instituted only for a time (as the sanction concerning the not eating of
blood and of things strangled [Acts 15:201; concerning the woman's head
being covered and the man's being uncovered when they prophesy [1 Cor.
11:4, 5]) because there was a special cause and reason for them and (this
ceasing) the institution itself ought to cease also; still there were
others invariable and of perpetual observance in the church, none of
which were founded upon any special occasion to last only for a time by
which they might be rendered temporary (such as the imposition of hands
in the setting apart of ministers and the distinction between the
offices of deacon and pastor). Since
the institution of the Lord's day was of this kind, from this we infer
that the intention of the founders was that the observance of this day
should be of perpetual and immutable right. XV.
The constitutions of emperors and the canons of councils about
the observance of the Lord's day do not prove that it was only of human
ordination because they did not sanction it first, but confirmed and
established it by their own authority as already instituted by the
apostles that no one might presume to violate it with impunity.
This was done by them most piously, both on account of the
Gentiles and on account of the impious Christians by whom they were
unwilling that this day should be profaned (and who without
constitutions of this kind might think themselves free and unrestrained
in their violation of it). XVI.
The Scripture passages usually adduced against the divine
institution of the Lord's day (Rom. 14:5; Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16) do not
overthrow our argument. (1) In all these passages, the observance of
some day for the purpose of religion (from the order of Christ) is no
more condemned or denied than the choice of some particular food for the
use of religion from the institution of Christ.
And no one would say that the selection of bread and wine in the
Supper for a religious use is either unlawful or not instituted by
Christ. (2) The apostle expressly speaks of that regard for days (Rom.
14:5, 6) which at that time gave offense to Christians; but the
observance of the Lord's day (which the apostle himself teaches
prevailed at that time in all the churches, I Cor. 16:1, 2), could not
afford the occasion of offense to anyone. (3) They treat of the Jewish
distinction of days, which belonged to the slavery of weak and beggarly
elements (Gal. 4:9), inasmuch as it had something typical and ceremonial
and brought back the rigor of the law (which has now no place with
respect to the Lord's day). XVII.
Christian liberty cannot be said to be lessened by this opinion.
It is not liberty, but an unchristian license for anyone to think
he is freed from the observance of any precept of the Decalogue and from
a divine and apostolic sanction. Experience
teaches too well that license and the negligence of sacred things grows
more and more, where a proper regard is not shown for the Lord's day. XVIII.
However, above all things, we must observe this-that we should
not be so anxious to investigate the primary origin of this day as its
careful and serious sanctification.
Whatever opinion anyone may wish to follow (for we suffer each
one to enjoy his own judgment), this should be strictly and inviolably
taken care of by all-that according to the command of Christ, believers
keep themselves clear of profanations, seriously devote themselves to
the sacred exercises of piety and observe this consecrated day in a holy
manner. Concerning the
necessity and mode of its observance we will treat in what follows. XIX.
Concerning the observance of the Lord's day also there
is not a little controversy.
Some (in excess) incline to a too great rigor and severity and
thus approach Judaism. Others
on the contrary (in defect) use too great relaxation, which opens the
door to profanity and license. The
middle way, however, seems to us to be the safest.
We unfold it by two propositions: the first teaches the necessity,
the second the mode of its observance.
XX. First proposition: (1) the observance of the Lord's day is
not necessary per se as a part of divine worship or a grace of mystical
signification, but still it is necessary with regard to the preservation
of good order (eutaxias) and apostolic and ecclesiastical polity.
It cannot be called a part of worship in itself, but only an
adjunct and circumstance of it because the gospel and rational (logikos)
worship of the New Testament is no longer restricted to certain places
or times (as under the Old Testament), but can be performed everywhere
and always in spirit and truth. Still
it is necessary according to God's arrangement by reason of the polity
always to be preserved in the church, for without a certain day neither
order nor decorum will exist in the church, but there will be mere
confusion in ecclesiastical assemblies. (2) It was not instituted from
any peculiar reason for a particular church of one time, but generally
for the church of all times. As
the apostles (who sanctioned this by their own example and precept, 1
Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7) were universal ambassadors, so they had regard to
the good of the whole church in this sanction.
And as it was received even in the age of the apostles, so it was
constantly retained by all the churches (as is evident from
ecclesiastical history). (3) There can be no reason for a change since,
as the memory of Christ's death, so also the memory of his resurrection
ought to be perpetual in the church (1 Cor. 11:26; 2 Tim. 2:8). (4) It
was afterwards confirmed by the various canons of ecumenical councils
and by the many edicts and laws of the emperors. XXI.
Now although we readily grant that if he pleases God (who is the
Lord of the Sabbath) can change this first day into any other of the
seven, still we do not think that this is lawful for any mortal, after
so constant and general an observance of this day.
Nor if cases can be granted, in which the public exercises of
piety cannot be performed on this day, does it follow that this
observance is only temporal and mutable; for this is not done
spontaneously, but from necessity (which has no law). XXII.
If the ancient Christians observed for some time the Sabbath also
in connection with the Lord’s day, so that they held sacred assemblies
on that day and thought it wrong to fast on it, as we gather from
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (2.59 [ANF 7:422-231) and from
Socrates (Ecclesiastical History
6.8* [NPNF2, 2:1441), this pertained to the decent burial of the
synagogue. It is evident
that the festivity of the Sabbath, even when kept, was considered far
inferior to the Lord's day. This
appears even from this- that among the errors of the Ebionites (on
account of which they were condemned by the church), they were convicted
of this also, that they celebrated the Lord’s day and the Sabbath
together (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.27* [FC 19:t84]).
Note also the Council of Laodicea, whose words are these: "It
is not becoming for Christians to Judaize and to rest on the Sabbath,
but to work on that day, preferring to rest on the Lord’s day, as
Christians, provided they can" (which seems to have been added on
account of servants who had heathen masters) "and if they are
discovered to be judaizers, let them be anathema by Christ" (Canon
29, Mansi, 2:569). XXIII.
Second proposition: the mode of the right observance of the Lord's day
resolves itself into two parts first, what may be called privative and
consists in rest or cessation from all servile work; the other, which is
positive, and is concerned with the sanctification of that rest by the
religious worship of God. XXIV.
The rest required is not one of ease and idleness, much less of
feasting and gluttony, of shows and dances and other profane practices
condemned by Paul in Rom. 13:13. It
is the Sabbath of Jehovah, not a feast of Ceres, Bacchus or Venus.
Rather the rest is a cessation from all Works of our ordinary and
worldly vocation which can call us away from divine worship.
Thus we must abstain on that day: (1) from all those works which
are strictly and properly called servile, usually done by servants and
serving men (to wit, as much as it can be done through immediate
necessity); (2) from our works which pertain to the uses of this life in
natural and civil affairs and properly refer to our own gain and
advantage. This is gathered
from the opposed concession, for as he grants six days to us that we may
labor and do all our work in them, so on this day he enjoins a cessation
from such work that no obstacle may be put in the way of divine worship.
And further here belongs the memorable law of Leo and Anthemius,
extant in the "Codex de feriis," whose words we are not
ashamed to quote: "We decree the Lord's day to be always so
honorable and to be reverenced that it should be free from all
executions, no admonition should be given to anyone, no exaction of bail
be made, the officer should be silent, summons lie hid.
Let that day be free from judicial examinations, let the rough
voice of the crier be still, litigants cease from controversy"
(Corpus luris Civilis, 11: Codex
lustinianus 12.9 [ed. P.
Krueger, 1968], p. 128). And
afterwards: "Nor relaxing the rest of this religious day, do we
suffer anyone to be occupied with obscene pleasures, theatrical shows,
circus plays, and the mournful spectacles of wild beasts should have no
patronage on that day, and if our birth day should fall upon it, the
celebration of it should be deferrer' (ibid.). XXV
Here, nevertheless, are excepted: (1) those works which directly regard
the worship and glory of God (Mt. 12:5; jn. 5:8, 9), for in this case
those works which are in their nature servile pass into the nature of
sacred works-nor are they so much our works as God's; (2) works of
charity and of mercy which are reckoned among the duties of piety (Mt.
12:10,12; Jn. 5:9; 9:14; Lk. 13:15); (3) the works of common honesty,
because as always, so on this day above others, we ought to carry
ourselves and to act honestly and decorously; (4) works of necessity,
which are neither feigned nor designedly produced, but imposed upon us
by providence (Lk. 14:5); not only absolute and simple, that may be
called necessary only (which we can in no way be in want of), but
modified and relative so that those things may be reckoned necessary not
only which are required absolutely for the existence or support of life,
but also those which conduce to our living better.
Hence some great advantage and emolument accrues to us or our
neighbor if they are done or some great disadvantage and loss if they
are omitted. 'The sabbath'
(as Christ testifies in Mk. 2:27) "was made for man and not man for
the sabbath.' XXVI. Therefore,
we do not think that in this cessation believers are bound to judaical
precision which some (more scrupulous than is just) maintain was not
revoked, so that it is lawful neither to kindle a fire, nor to cook food,
nor to take up arms against an enemy, nor to prosecute a journey begun
by land or sea, nor to refresh themselves with innocent relaxation of
the mind and body, provided they are done out of the hours appointed for
divine worship, nor to have any diversion, however slight, to any things
belonging to the advantages or emoluments of this life.
For although this opinion bears on its face a beautiful
appearance of piety (and undoubtedly with good intention is proposed by
pious men to procure the better sanctification of this day, usually so
basely profaned), still it labors under grievous disadvantages; nor can
it be retained without in this way bringing back into the church and
imposing anew upon the shoulders of Christians an unbearable yoke (abastakton),
repugnant to Christian liberty and the gentleness of Christ and opposed
to the sweetness of the covenant of grace by agitating and tormenting
the consciences of men through infinite scruples and inextricable
difficulties (nearly driving to desperation). XXVII.
The other part of the observance of the Lord's day pertains to
the sanctification of the rest which is employed in sacred assemblies
and in the stated and public worship of God.
For although sacred assemblies for the public exercises of piety
can and ought to be frequented on other days also by everyone (as far as
their business will allow) and every pious person is bound in duty to
his conscience to have privately his daily devotional exercises, still
on this day above others a holy convocation ought to take place (as was
the custom on the Sabbath, Lev. 23:3) in which there may be leisure for
devout attention to the reading and hearing of the word (Heb. 10:25),
the celebration of the sacraments (Acts 20:7), the psalms and prayer
(Col. 3:16; Acts 1:14), to alms and help to the poor (I Cor. 16:2) and
in general to all that sacred service pertaining to external and stated
worship. XXVIII.
And all agree that to this we should most especially devote
ourselves, the many other controversies here waged, either curious or by
no means necessary and useful, being removed.
The Synod of Dort has reference to this, maintaining "that
this day ought so to be appropriated to divine worship, that we should
rest on it from all servile works (with the exception of those which
charity and pressing necessity demand) and from all pleasures of such a
kind as could hinder divine worship" ("Post-Acta, of
Na-Handelingen, Sec. 164" in Acta
of Handelingen der Nationale Synode ... 1618 en 1619 [1987 repr.],
pp. 941-42). And "lest
the people on the Lord's day after 12 o'clock, distracted by other
labors and profane exercises, should be kept away from the afternoon
meetings, it wishes the magistrates to be asked to prohibit by more
severe edicts all servile or daily works and especially plays, drinking
together and other profanations of the Sabbath, in which the afternoon (especially
in the town) is accustomed for the most part to be passed, so that in
this way also they may better be drawn to those afternoon meetings and
so learn to sanctify the entire Sabbath day" (ibid.). For no other
reason did God in the Law and the Prophets so strongly urge and
recommend the sanctification of the Sabbath and threaten to punish so
severely its violation and profanation.
For although these had a primary reference to the Jews, yet we
cannot doubt that in their own manner they had a reference to Christians
also inasmuch as they included a moral duty and one of perpetual
observance. XXIX.
Although the conscientious regard for and distinction of days (and
of other typical ceremonial times of the Old Testament) has been taken
away under the New, as also straightway is forbidden the superstitious
distinction of days and times (prevailing among the heathen), it does
not follow that the Sabbath of the Lord transferred from the seventh day
to the first (and freed from the typical use and economical strictness
of the Old Testament) was on that account abrogated. XXX.
He who does works of necessary charity and mercy on the Sabbath
does not profane it. He
would be guilty of the basest superstition and hypocrisy who, under this
pretext, would desert a neighbor in trouble.
He ought to help whom he can and to serve God according to his
ordination. For the Sabbath
is said to have been "made for man" that he may in a special
manner consult his own salvation by performing the duties of piety to
God and of love to his neighbor; "not man for the Sabbath," as
if he ought to neglect necessary charity or mercy towards himself or
neighbor through a superstitious regard for the Sabbath. XXXI.
The cessation from all servile work and carnal pleasure ought not
to be pressed to the neglect of the spiritual practice of true holiness.
It ought not to be pressed on account of itself, as if it were, a
part of worship or as if the day itself were holier than others, but as
the condition and help of private and public exercises to be performed
thus. Therefore, this
doctrine is very far from leading men to the opinion that they have done
their duty remarkably well if, the desire for true piety and holiness
being left, they devote themselves to a scrupulous and absolute
cessation from all work. We
seek the means on account of the end and the condition on account of the
principal work (to wit, rest on account of the spiritual exercises of
true piety and holiness). Therefore
no more ought the practice of the Sabbath to be burdened with those
consequences from the accidental abuse of men, than the practice of
sacred reading, the hearing of the word, prayers and the sacraments,
which are open to the same abuses, although no one would deny that these
are moral duties of perpetual observance. XXXII.
The accommodation of the fourth precept to the peculiar state of
the Jews (which was in the observance of the seventh day from the
beginning of creation) did not render this precept ceremonial anymore
than the promise to give the land of Canaan to the people of Israel
makes the fifth commandment ceremonial; nor the preface, where the
bringing of the people out of Egypt is mentioned, makes all the precepts
ceremonial. Indeed, we
grant that a somewhat stricter observance of the Sabbath was commanded
in those times, accommodated to the training and servitude of the times,
which does not obtain in all ages.
However, this does not hinder the observance itself from being
moral and common to all ages. Take
from Volume 2 of Institutes of Elenctic Theology, by Francis
Turretin. |