2HC and the Lord's Day

[Ploutos]

I am wrapping up my second read-through of the 2nd Helvetic Confession. I had never read it until a couple months ago, and now I am somewhat disappointed I hadn't discovered it earlier in my Christian walk. I love the clarity, comprehensiveness, and warmth of its writing.

I did read this thread from last fall but it didn't really address the question I have regarding Chapter 24.

In comparing the "continental" and "English" views of the sabbath, is it best to read the Westminsterian view as a divergence from or a development of the earlier view (which @Charles Johnson traced at least back to Aquinas)? My initial impression is that the differences in the theological reasoning are significant - with 2HC appearing to state that the Sabbath has been abrogated and the Lord's Day is a new thing, while Westminster appears to see more continuity between the OT Sabbath and the NT Lord's Day. In saying this, I'm not giving into the popular trope that the two views are pitted against each other - my impression is that all the Reformers would by today's low standards stand out as strict sabbatarians. I am curious to hear what others think.

I would plead, especially with newcomers, that this thread not be derailed by overt or implicit attacks on the board's official stance regarding the Sabbath. I am not intending any such thing myself, but rather striving to become more educated and articulate through the wisdom of others.

Adding this as a hopefully unnecessary precaution:

Application Rejection FAQ

 

[MW]

My initial impression is that the differences in the theological reasoning are significant - with 2HC appearing to state that the Sabbath has been abrogated and the Lord's Day is a new thing, while Westminster appears to see more continuity between the OT Sabbath and the NT Lord's Day. In saying this, I'm not giving into the popular trope that the two views are pitted against each other - my impression is that all the Reformers would by today's low standards stand out as strict sabbatarians. I am curious to hear what others think.

The sabbath day itself was a holy day under the Old Testament. It was a sign between God and Israel. The earlier reformers address themselves to that issue in terms of strict discontinuity. The day itself is no longer holy, nor does it remain as a covenantal sign with Israel. I think where their comments are diverted to the issue of "Sabbath-keeping" they are being misappropriated.

Westminster's view of the Lord's day as the Christian Sabbath presupposes the reformers' view of "discontinuity." It refers to the Lord's day as a positive appointment in 21.7. So the day itself is not holy.

Section 8 then speaks about the sanctification of the Sabbath. Here it applies its hermeneutic of continuity with respect to the moral law, as taught in 19.5. It is with the exposition of moral duties connected with the Christian Sabbath that differences begin to emerge between the so-called "continental" and "Puritan" views.

Some try to drive a large wedge between them. I think this is unnecessary and unhelpful. To me it comes across as a natural development. The reformers came out of Rome and were directly concerned with the Lord's day in terms of the church and its meetings. After a century of pious reflection on the Lord's day and its relation to the Christian life as a whole you have a well-rounded doctrine according to godliness.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Sometimes sources, especially continental ones, use the word "Sabbath" as a synonym of "Jewish/ Old Testament" sabbath, and do not use the term to refer to the Lord's Day, and since they use the term to designate the peculiarly Jewish aspects of OT sabbath observance, they say "the sabbath was abolished and replaced with the Lord's Day." The Leiden Synopsis is an example of this.
But that's really just a difference in terms from British writers who do call Sunday "the sabbath," saying "the sabbath changed days," because they're designating something different by the term.
Both agree that the fourth commandment required worship and rest on the seventh day, and now requires it on the first day.
This group of continental sabbatarians was a majority in the Netherlands, since the Synod of Dort passed acts for the observance of the Lord's Day which forbid all sorts of recreation. Walaeus, Hoornbeeck, and Brakel clearly identify with this group.
However, there were some (probably including Calvin) who thought that in theory the Sunday sabbath is not of divine right, and that the church could have picked a different day. Cocceius appears to be of this opinion. This opinion was tolerated to some extent in the Netherlands, although not at every university and not in every classis. It was not tolerated in Scotland or by the English puritans. So what is sometimes called the "continental view" should probably be called the "continental minority view."
The Helvetic Confession appears to line up more with the latter view since it speaks of the church's appointment. But it also speaks of "the Lord's Day." I think one would have a very difficult time proven it actually excludes either view.
The Scots famously approved of the Helvetic Confession, though without adopting it, and they apparently didn't take issue with this language, although they did with the statements of the same chapter on evangelical feast days.

 

[Ploutos]

So in your view it is more appropriate to think in terms of refinement and development than divergence?

 

[MW]

So in your view it is more appropriate to think in terms of refinement and development than divergence?

In the main, yes; but there is still divergence on some things. Feast days, for example, as mentioned by Charles. Debates over liberty of conscience and the extent of church power helped pave the way for an explicit doctrine on the morality of the Sabbath.