that "some thought they ought to fast one day, some two, some more, and some computed forty hours,"* that is, the forty hours during which the Saviour was supposed to have been a tenant of the tomb. These forty hours were gradually, in the process of time, extended to forty days, in imitation of the Saviour's fast of forty days in the wilderness. Hence came Lent, which, in its present form, embracing a period of forty days, cannot be traced back beyond the end of the sixth century. So late as the middle of the fifth century, Christians were no more agreed about the manner of keeping the fast than about the time, for nothing had as yet been settled. Some confined themselves wholly to vegetable food; some partook of fish; others added fowls, since they, according to Moses, came also from the waters, (Gen. i. 20.) Some abstained from "all manner of fruit of trees," others fed on dry bread only, and some would not allow themselves even that. Other usages prevailed among others, for which, says Socrates, "innumerable reasons were assigned," for there was no authority to which any one could appeal, the Apostles having left every one to his "own will and free choice in the case." There was the same variety, he adds, in regard to the performances in the religious assemblies of Christians. "In sum," says he, "in all places, and among all sects, you will scarcely find two churches exactly agreeing about their prayers."+

In speaking of the fast which preceded the festival of the Resurrection, and was so intimately connected with it that it is difficult to separate them, we have said all that is required of the fasts of the early Christians, and we shall not return to the subject. Nor need the festival itself much longer detain us. We should only weary our readers were we to go minutely into the controversy, which for

*

Euseb. Hist. L. v. c. 24. In Socrates's days (middle of the fifth century) there was no greater agreement in regard to the fasts before Easter. The Romans, he says, (L. v. c. 22,) fasted three weeks, excepting on Saturdays and Sundays, though in another passage he says they fasted every Saturday; in Illyricum, throughout all Achaia, and at Alexandria, a fast of six weeks before Easter was observed; others fasted for a different period, all still calling the fast a "quadragesimal fast," for which, he says, some assigned one reason and some another, "according to their particular fancies and humors."

† L. v. c. 22.

a time raged furiously between the Eastern and Western Churches about the proper time of keeping it. But we cannot wholly pass over the subject, more especially as it has a bearing on the question of the value of the opinions and usages of Christian antiquity, and shows how soon after we leave the facts and teachings of the New Testament itself we become involved in uncertainty and darkness.

The facts are briefly these. The Christians of Asia, according to the oldest authorities, kept the festival on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, (April,) the Jewish day, on whatever day of the week it might happen to fall. The Western Christians, on the contrary, always deferred the festival till the Sunday following, affirming that it should be always kept on Sunday, as on that day Jesus rose from the dead. This difference of days led to some confusion, and one of its consequences was, that while a portion of the Christian world were mourning the death of the Saviour, another portion of it were rejoicing in remembrance of his resurrection. The first controversy on the subject occurred about the middle of the second century, when Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, being at Rome, discussed the question with Anicetus, then bishop there, the former alleging in favor of the Asiatic custom the authority of John and other Apostles whose opinions and practice he well knew, having, as he said, celebrated the feast with them; and the latter appealing to the example of his predecessors, one of whom had adduced the appearance of an angel in support of the Roman custom. Neither was able to convince the other, but they parted amicably, Anicetus having in token of friendship and communion permitted Polycarp to administer the eucharist in his church, contrary to usage, which required it to be administered by the bishop of the place. Polycarp went home, but the discussion continued, for we soon after hear of two books on the subject of the festival written by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, now lost.* Near the end of the century the controversy became very violent. Several councils, as Eusebius informs us, were assembled and decrees promulgated respecting it. Victor, bishop of Rome, took high ground, but the Asiatic bishops were not intimidated. At their head stood, at this time,

* Euseb. L. iv. c. 26.

Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who in a letter to Victor, asserts that all the "great lights" of the Asiatic church, as the Apostles John and Philip, and several martyrs whom he names, always observed the feast on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever might be the day of the week. Seven of his relatives, he says, had been bishops, all of whom had kept the festival on that day; he was now, he adds, an old man, he had diligently studied the Scriptures, and conversed with Christians dispersed in all parts of the world, and he was not to be intimidated by threats. He concludes by saying that the letter was approved by the bishops who were with him, and they were numerous. This letter threw the Roman bishop into a paroxysm of rage, and he proceeds immediately to send abroad letters excommunicating the whole Eastern church. His conduct in this, however, was much censured by other bishops of the West, especially by Irenæus of Lyons, who wrote him a sharp letter in the name of the Christians of Gaul, reproving his unchristian conduct, reminding him that the customs of Christians differed much on other points, and by various arguments endeavoring to inspire in him more pacific dispositions.* The council of Nice, about a century and a quarter after, decided that the festival ought to be always celebrated on Sunday, the custom of the Latin or Gentile church thus prevailing. They who retained the old day were from that time pronounced heretics.

The feast was still a "moveable" one, as it is called, and it was necessary from year to year to announce from astronomical calculations on what day of the month the first Sunday after the full moon next succeeding the vernal equinox would fall, and as Alexandria was at that time the seat of the sciences, this office was generally discharged by the bishop of that place. There remained still in different countries a difference in the time of keeping the festival, this difference sometimes amounting to a whole month, and it was not before A. D. 800, that entire uniformity took place. The ancient Christian year began with Easter, and not with Advent. With the old Christians, indeed, the resurrection was, we may almost say, all in all; on it the truth of Christianity, preaching, every thing, rested.

Christ rose the vanquisher of death and hell, the first-born from the dead, the beginning of the new spiritual creation. As it was at the material creation, so now, light came out of darkness; from night all things came. The festival

66

was called the "salutary" festival, the "kingly day,” the day of victory," the "crown and head of all festivals." This was not however in the earliest times.

The ceremonies attending the observance of the festival in the second century were simple, compared with those which were afterwards introduced partly from the natural love of pomp, and partly from imitation of the heathen festivals, which Christians could with difficulty be prevented from frequenting, and from which many observances were from time to time transferred to the Christian festivals. Vigils, or night watches on Easter eve, soon began to be kept, and the people continued in the churches until midnight. Constantine, naturally vain, and fond of parade, signalized his love of display, and perhaps thought he did honor to religion by celebrating them with extraordinary pomp. The custom had been introduced before his time, of lighting up a vast quantity of tapers in the churches on the eve of the festival. Not satisfied with this, the Emperor ordered them to be lighted all over the city, and further, that the brilliancy of the night might rival or even exceed the splendor of day, he had pillars of wax of an immense height erected, the effect of which, when lighted in the evening is described as brilliant in the extreme.*

The Passover, or Easter, was one of the seasons assigned for baptism, and Pentecost, (Whitsuntide, or Whitsunday,) the day of the descent of the Spirit, fifty days after, was another. This was another ancient festival intimately connected with the preceding, so intimately indeed, that they may be said to have been united, or rather, the whole interval between Easter and Pentecost was kept as a festival, no fasting, as we have said, being allowed during the period, and Christians not being permitted to kneel in

* Euseb. Vit. Const. L. iv. c. 22. According to Jerome, (Comment. in Matth. xxv. 6.) the Easter vigils were kept till midnight in consequence of a tradition that Christ would come at that hour, as on the night when the Passover was instituted the Lord had visited Egypt at that hour. But that once past, the people could with safety be dismissed. Lactantius, (Inst. L. vii. c. 19,) refers to the same tradition.

+ Tert. De Baptismo, c. 19.

prayer, for this was a token, or attitude of humiliation inconsistent with the joy and gratitude becoming the season, joy naturally looking up to Heaven with outspread hands.

These were the only two festivals, with the exception of the weekly festival of Sunday, known in the church in primitive times and before the days of Origen. The silence of Justin Martyr, an earlier father, on the whole subject of annual festivals, is a remarkable fact which should not be passed over without notice.* Tertullian speaks only of Easter-the Passover he calls it—and Pentecost, though it is certain he would have mentioned others, had any been known to him. On one occasion at least, he could not have avoided it. He is censuring Christians of his age for attending Pagan festivals and attempting to dissuade them from it, and the very drift of his argument is that Christians possess more festivals than the Heathens that if any indulgence or relaxation were needed, they need not seek it at the Pagan festivals, for they had enough of their own. But his enumeration does not extend beyond those already specified.t Could he have adduced others, his position would have been so far strengthened, and Tertullian was not the man unnecessarily to yield any advantage in an argument. But independently of this consideration, it is impossible, we should say, for any one to read Tertullian, and note his frequent allusions to Christian fasts and festivals by name, and believe that he would have omitted to notice other holidays, had they existed in his time. The testimony of Clement of Alexandria we shall consider presently.

We have already alluded to Origen, who in piety, genius and learning, had no superior among the early fathers. Origen wrote in the former part of the third century. He

*He wrote in the former part of the second century. Though he describes baptism at large, he does not mention any festivals with which it was connected. Nor does it appear from the writings of Christian antiquity, when Easter and Pentecost first came to be considered as the most suitable seasons for the performance of the rite. The Oriental Christians baptised also at Epiphany.

De Idololatria, c. 14. All the Heathen festivals, Tertullian says, would not amount to one Pentecost, or feast of fifty days. We may observe here, that this feast included whatever notice was taken of the Ascension, no distinct festival of which is mentioned by any early writer, nor does any such appear to have existed before some time in the fourth century.