Point 12: Of Fasting
Our consent.
Our consent I will set down in three conclusions. Conclusion 1. We do not condemn fasting, but maintain three sorts thereof: a moral, civil, and a religious fast. The first, being moral, is a practice of sobriety or temperance, when in the use of meats and drinks the appetite is restrained that it does not exceed moderation. This must be used by all Christians in the whole course of their lives. The second, being civil, is when upon some particular and political considerations men abstain from certain meats — as in our commonwealth the law enjoins us to abstain from flesh meat at certain seasons of the year, for the special ends of preserving the breed of cattle and maintaining the calling of the fisherman. The third, namely a religious fast, is when the duties of religion — as the exercise of prayer and humiliation — are practiced in fasting. I do now specially treat of this kind.
Conclusion 2. We join with them in the allowance of the principal and right ends of a religious fast, and they are three. The first is that thereby the mind may become attentive in meditation of the duties of godliness to be performed. The second is that the rebellion of the flesh may be subdued, for the flesh pampered becomes an instrument of licentiousness. The third, and as I take it the chief end of a religious fast, is to profess our guiltiness and to testify our humiliation before God for our sins. For this end in the feast of Nineveh, even the beasts were made to abstain.
Conclusion 3. We yield to them that fasting is a help and furtherance to the worship of God — yes, and a good work also if it be used in a good manner. For though fasting in itself, being a thing indifferent as eating and drinking are, is not to be termed a good work, yet being applied and considered in relation to the right ends before spoken of, and practiced accordingly, it is a work allowed of God and highly to be esteemed by all the servants and people of God.
The difference or dissent.
Our dissent from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of fasting stands in three things. First, they appoint and prescribe set times of fasting as necessary to be kept. But we hold and teach that to prescribe the time of a religious fast is in the liberty of the Church and the governors thereof, as special occasion shall be offered. When the disciples of John asked Christ why they and the Pharisees fast often but his disciples fasted not, he answered: Can the children of the marriage chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast (Matthew 9:15). Where he gives them to understand that they must fast as occasions of mourning are offered. From this I gather that a set time of fasting is no more to be enjoined than a set time of mourning. It was the opinion of Augustine that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed any times of fasting. Tertullian says that those of his time fasted of their own accord freely, without law or commandment, as occasions and times served. Eusebius says that Montanus was the first that made laws of fasting. It is objected that there is a set time of fasting prescribed in Leviticus 16:29. Answer: This set and prescribed fast was commanded of God as a part of the legal worship, which had its end in the death of Christ. Therefore it does not justify a set time of fasting in the New Testament, where God has left man to his own liberty without giving a like commandment. It is again alleged that in Zechariah 7:5 there were set times appointed for the celebration of religious fasts — the fifth and the seventh months. Answer: They were appointed upon occasion of the present afflictions of the Church in Babylon, and they ceased upon their deliverance. The like upon like occasion we may appoint. It is further objected that some churches of the Protestants observe set times of fasting. Answer: In some churches there are set days and times of fasting, not upon necessity or for conscience or religion's sake, but for political or civil regards — whereas in the Roman Church it is held a mortal sin to defer the set time of fasting till the next day following.
Secondly, we dissent from the Church of Rome touching the manner of keeping a fast. For the best learned among them allow the drinking of wine and water and electuaries, and that often within the compass of their appointed fast. They allow the eating of one meal on a fasting day at noon, and upon reasonable cause one hour before, the time of fasting not yet ended. But this practice is indeed absurd and contrary to the practice of the Old Testament, and it frustrates the end of fasting. For bodily abstinence is an outward means and sign whereby we acknowledge our guiltiness and unworthiness of any of the blessings of God. Again, they prescribe a difference of meats — white meat only to be used on their fasting days, and that of necessity and for conscience sake in most cases. But we hold this distinction of meats to be both foolish and wicked. Foolish, because in such meats as they prescribe there is as much filling and delight as in any other meats — as namely in fish, fruits, wine, and the like which they permit. And it is against the end of a religious fast to use any refreshing at all, so far as necessity of health and comeliness will permit. Thus the Church in times past used to abstain not only from meat and drink but from all delights whatsoever, even from soft apparel and sweet ointments. Joel 2:15-16: Sanctify a fast — let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her bridal chamber. Daniel 10:3: I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine within my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, until three weeks of days were fulfilled. 1 Corinthians 7:5: Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer.
Again, we hold this practice to be wicked because it takes away the liberty of Christians, by which unto the pure all things are pure. The Apostle in Galatians 5 bids us to stand fast in this liberty, which the Church of Rome would thus abolish. For the better understanding of this, let us consider how the Lord himself has from the beginning kept in his own hands, as a master in his own house, the disposition of his creatures for the use of man, that man might depend on him and his word for temporal blessings. In the first age, he appointed unto man for meat every herb of the earth bearing seed, and every tree wherein there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed (Genesis 1:29). After the flood the Lord renewed his grant of the use of the creatures, and gave his people liberty to eat the flesh of living creatures — yet so as he made some things unclean and forbad the eating of them, among the rest the eating of blood. But since the coming of Christ he has enlarged his word and given liberty to all, both Jews and Gentiles, to eat of all kinds of flesh. This word of his we rest upon, holding it a doctrine of devils for men to command an abstinence from meats for conscience sake, which the Lord himself has created to be received with thanksgiving. Socrates, a Christian historian, says that the Apostles left it free to everyone to use what kind of meat they would on fasting days and other times. Spyridon in Lent dressed swine's flesh and set it before a stranger, eating himself and bidding the stranger also to eat. The stranger refusing and professing himself to be a Christian, Spyridon said: For that reason the rather must you do it, for to the pure all things are pure, as the word of God teaches us.
But they object Jeremiah 35, where Jonadab commanded the Rechabites to abstain from wine, which commandment they obeyed and are commended for doing well in obeying. Therefore (say they) some kind of meats may lawfully be forbidden. Answer: Jonadab gave this commandment not in way of religion or merit, but for other wise and political regards. For he enjoined his posterity not to drink wine, not to build houses, not to sow seed or plant vineyards, or to have any in possession, but to live in tents — to the end that they might be prepared to bear the calamities that should befall them in time to come. But the Popish abstinence from certain meats has respect to conscience and religion, and therefore is of another kind and can have no warrant thence.
Objection 2. Daniel 10:3: Daniel, being in heaviness for three weeks of days, abstained from flesh — and his example is our warrant. Answer: It was the manner of holy men in ancient times, when they fasted many days together of their own accord freely, to abstain from sundry things. Thus Daniel abstained from flesh. But the Popish abstinence from flesh is not free but stands by commandment, and the omitting of it is mortal sin. Again, if they will follow Daniel in abstaining from flesh, why do they not also abstain from all pleasant bread and wine — yes, from ointments? And why will they eat anything in the time of their fast, whereas they cannot show that Daniel ate anything at all until evening? Molanus has noted that our ancestors abstained from wine and dainties, and that some of them ate nothing for two or three days together.
Objection 3. They allege the diet of John the Baptist, whose meat was locusts and wild honey, and of Timothy, who abstained from wine. Answer: Their kind of diet and that abstinence which they used was only for temperance's sake, not for conscience or to merit anything thereby. Let them prove the contrary if they can.
Thirdly and lastly, we dissent from them touching certain ends of fasting. For they make abstinence itself, in a person fitly prepared, to be a part of the worship of God. But we take it to be a thing indifferent in itself and therefore no part of God's worship. Yet being well used, we esteem it as a prop or furtherance of worship, in that we are made the fitter by it to worship God. Hereupon some of the more learned sort of them say: Not the work of fasting done, but the devotion of the worker, is to be reputed the service of God. Again, they say that fasting with devotion is a work of satisfaction to God's justice for the temporal punishment of our sins. Wherein we take them to blasphemously derogate from Christ our Savior, who is the whole and perfect satisfaction for sin, both in respect of fault and punishment. Here they allege the example of the Ninevites and of Ahab's fasting, whereby they turned away the judgments of God denounced against them by his prophets. We answer that God's wrath was appeased toward the Ninevites not by their fasting but by faith laying hold on God's mercy in Christ, and thereby staying his judgment. Their fasting was only a sign of their repentance, and their repentance a fruit and sign of their faith, whereby they believed the preaching of Jonah. As for Ahab's humiliation, it is nothing to the purpose, for it was in hypocrisy. To conclude, we for our parts do not condemn this exercise of fasting, but the abuse of it. And it were to be wished that fasting were more used by all Christians in all places, considering the Lord does daily give us new and special occasions of public and private fasting.
Our consent.
I will set out our agreement in three conclusions. Conclusion 1. We do not condemn fasting but recognize three types: moral, civil, and religious. The first, the moral fast, is the practice of sobriety and temperance — restraining the appetite in the use of food and drink so that it does not exceed moderation. Every Christian should practice this throughout life. The second, the civil fast, is when people abstain from certain foods for particular civic or governmental reasons — as when the law in our country requires abstaining from meat at certain times of the year to preserve livestock and support the fishing industry. The third, the religious fast, is when the duties of religion — prayer and humiliation — are practiced in conjunction with fasting. This is the kind I will now address specifically.
Conclusion 2. We join with the Roman Church in affirming the proper and primary purposes of a religious fast, which are three. The first is that fasting helps the mind become attentive in meditation on the duties of godliness. The second is that it subdues the rebellion of the flesh, which becomes an instrument of unruliness when indulged. The third — and what I take to be the chief purpose — is to confess our guilt and testify our humiliation before God for our sins. For this purpose even the animals were made to fast during the Ninevite fast.
Conclusion 3. We grant that fasting is a help and support for the worship of God — and indeed a good work when practiced in the right way. Though fasting in itself, being a morally indifferent act like eating and drinking, is not to be called a good work, when it is directed toward the right purposes described above and practiced accordingly, it is a work approved by God and highly to be valued by all God's servants.
The difference or dissent.
Our disagreement with the Church of Rome on fasting concerns three things. First, they prescribe fixed times of fasting as necessary to observe. We hold and teach that determining the time of a religious fast belongs to the liberty of the church and its leaders, to be set as particular occasions arise. When John's disciples asked Christ why they and the Pharisees fasted often while His disciples did not, He answered: 'The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn while the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast' (Matthew 9:15). He made clear that fasting should follow occasions of mourning as they arise. From this I conclude that a fixed time of fasting is no more appropriate to prescribe than a fixed time of mourning. Augustine held the opinion that neither Christ nor His apostles appointed any set times for fasting. Tertullian says that people in his time fasted of their own free will, without law or commandment, as occasion and circumstances allowed. Eusebius says that Montanus was the first to make laws about fasting. It is objected that a set fast is prescribed in Leviticus 16:29. Answer: That prescribed fast was commanded by God as part of the ceremonial law, which came to its end in the death of Christ. It therefore does not justify a set time of fasting in the New Testament, where God has left the matter to human liberty without giving a comparable commandment. It is also claimed that in Zechariah 7:5 set times were appointed for religious fasts — the fifth and seventh months. Answer: These were appointed in response to the church's present afflictions in Babylon and ceased when deliverance came. We may do the same when similar occasions arise. It is further objected that some Protestant churches observe set times of fasting. Answer: Where such days exist, they are appointed for civic or political reasons — not as a matter of conscience or religious necessity. The Roman Church, by contrast, treats missing a set fast day as a mortal sin.
Second, we disagree with the Roman Church on the manner of fasting. Even their most learned teachers allow the drinking of wine, water, and restorative beverages — often during the course of their prescribed fast. They permit eating one meal on a fast day at noon, and on good grounds an hour earlier, while the fast period is still technically in effect. But this practice is contrary to Old Testament practice and defeats the purpose of fasting. Physical abstinence is an outward means and sign by which we acknowledge our guilt and unworthiness of any of God's blessings. They also prescribe a difference in foods — on their fast days, only 'white meats' are permitted, and in most cases this is enforced as a matter of conscience. We regard this distinction as both foolish and wicked. Foolish — because the foods they permit (fish, fruits, wine, and the like) are just as filling and pleasurable as those they forbid. And it is contrary to the purpose of a religious fast to indulge in any refreshment beyond what health and decency require. The ancient church used to abstain not only from food and drink but from every pleasure — even from soft clothing and fragrant ointments. Joel 2:15-16 says: 'Consecrate a fast. Let the bridegroom come out of his room and the bride out of her bridal chamber.' Daniel 10:3 says: 'I did not eat any desirable food, nor did meat or wine enter my mouth, nor did I use any ointment at all until the entire three weeks were completed.' 1 Corinthians 7:5 says: 'Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.'
We also regard this practice as wicked because it takes away Christian liberty, according to which 'to the pure, all things are pure.' The apostle in Galatians 5 tells us to stand firm in this liberty, which the Church of Rome would abolish. To understand this better, consider how the Lord has from the beginning kept in His own hands — as a master in his own house — the allocation of His creation for human use, so that people would depend on Him and His word for their daily blessings. In the first age, He appointed as food for humanity every seed-bearing plant and every tree bearing seed-containing fruit (Genesis 1:29). After the flood, the Lord renewed the grant and gave His people liberty to eat the flesh of living creatures — while still declaring some things unclean and forbidding their consumption, including blood. But since the coming of Christ, He has broadened His word and given full liberty to all — both Jews and Gentiles — to eat all kinds of meat. We rest on this word of God, holding it 'a doctrine of demons for men to forbid eating of foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in.' Socrates, a Christian historian, records that the apostles left everyone free to eat whatever they chose on fast days and at other times. Spyridon, during Lent, prepared pork and set it before a stranger, eating some himself and inviting the stranger to eat as well. When the stranger refused, claiming to be a Christian, Spyridon said: 'All the more reason to eat, then — for to the pure, all things are pure, as God's word teaches us.'
They object using Jeremiah 35, where Jonadab commanded the Rechabites to abstain from wine — a command they obeyed and were commended for obeying. Therefore, they say, certain foods may lawfully be forbidden. Answer: Jonadab gave this commandment not as a religious or meritorious matter, but for wise practical reasons. He commanded his descendants not to drink wine, not to build houses, not to sow grain or plant vineyards, and not to own any — but to live in tents — so that they would be prepared to endure the hardships that would come upon them. But the Roman Catholic abstinence from certain foods is a matter of conscience and religion, and therefore is a different thing entirely, with no warrant from the Rechabites' example.
Objection 2. Daniel 10:3 records that Daniel, in mourning for three weeks, abstained from meat — and this example, they say, is our warrant. Answer: It was the custom of holy people in ancient times, when they fasted of their own free choice over many days, to abstain from various things. Daniel abstained from meat in this way. But the Roman Catholic abstinence from meat is not voluntary — it is required by commandment, and omitting it is treated as a mortal sin. Furthermore, if they want to follow Daniel's example in abstaining from meat, why do they not also abstain from all rich food and wine — and from ointments? And why do they eat anything at all during their fasts, since there is no evidence that Daniel ate anything until evening? Molanus has noted that our ancestors abstained from wine and delicacies, and that some of them ate nothing for two or three days at a stretch.
Objection 3. They cite the diet of John the Baptist — whose food was locusts and wild honey — and of Timothy, who abstained from wine. Answer: Both John and Timothy practiced that kind of diet and abstinence purely for the sake of temperance — not for conscience or to earn merit by it. Let them prove the contrary if they can.
Third and finally, we disagree with the Roman Church on certain purposes they assign to fasting. They make abstinence itself — in a person who is properly disposed — a part of the worship of God. We regard it as morally indifferent in itself and therefore not a part of God's worship. Rightly practiced, we esteem it as a support and aid to worship — in that it helps us be better fitted for worshipping God. Even some of their more learned teachers acknowledge this when they say: 'Not the work of fasting itself, but the devotion of the person fasting, is to be regarded as service to God.' They also say that fasting with devotion is a work of satisfaction toward God's justice for the temporal punishment of sins. We consider this a blasphemous belittling of Christ our Savior, who is the complete and perfect satisfaction for sin — both in terms of guilt and punishment. On this point they appeal to the examples of the Ninevites and of Ahab's fasting, by which they turned away the judgments God had declared through His prophets. We answer that God's wrath was turned from the Ninevites not by their fasting but by faith laying hold of God's mercy in Christ, and thereby staying His judgment. Their fasting was only a sign of their repentance, and their repentance was a fruit and sign of their faith, aroused by the preaching of Jonah. As for Ahab's humiliation — it is irrelevant to the case, for it was done in hypocrisy. In conclusion: we do not condemn the practice of fasting — only its abuse. It would be well if fasting were practiced more widely by all Christians everywhere, given that the Lord provides us daily with new and specific occasions for both public and private fasting.
