Fasting
Here is meant not a bodily, but a spiritual altar; because the altar is opposed to the material Tabernacle: and what is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse, in which he proves that we have an altar.
The bodies of the beasts, whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sin, were burnt without the camp; so Christ Jesus, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Now lay the reason or proof to the thing that is proved, and we must needs understand Christ himself, who was both the altar, the priest, and the sacrifice.
Objection. V.
Lastly, they say, where alteration is both of law and covenant: there must needs be a new priest and a new sacrifice. But in the New
Testament there is alteration both of law and covenant: and therefore there is both new priest and new sacrifice.
Answer.
All may be granted: in the New Testament, there is both new priest and sacrifice: yet not any popish priest, but only Christ himself both
God and man. The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man: and the altar, Christ as he is God, who in the New Testament offered himself a sacrifice to his Father for the sins of the world. For though he were the lamb of God slain from the beginning of the world, in regard of the purpose of God, in regard of the value of his merit, and in regard of faith which makes things to come as present, yet was he not actually offered till the fullness of time came; and once offering of himself, he remains a priest for ever, and all other priests beside him, are superfluous: his one offering once offered, being all-sufficient.
Of Fasting I. Our Consent
Our consent may be set down in three conclusions:
Conclusion 1. We do not condemn fasting, but maintain three sorts thereof: to wit, a moral, civil, and a religious fast. The first being moral, is a practice of sobriety or temperance, when as in the use of meats and drinks the appetite is restrained that it does not exceed moderation. And this must be used of all Christians in the whole course of their lives. The second being civil, is when upon some particular and politic considerations, men abstain from certain meats; as in this our commonwealth the law enjoins us to abstain from meat at certain seasons of the year for these special ends: to preserve the breed of cattle, and to maintain 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. And I do now especially entreat 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. And for this end, in the fast of Nineveh, the very beast was made to abstain.
Conclusion 3. We yield unto 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 of all the servants and people of God.
II. The Dissent or Difference
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" (Matt. 9:15), where He gives them to understand that they must fast as occasions of mourning are offered. Where also 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." And Tertullian says that they of his time "fasted of their own accord freely, without law or commandment, as occasions and time served." And 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 his 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 the like commandment. It is again alleged that [in] Zechariah 7:5 there were set times appointed for the celebration of religious fasts unto the Lord—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 may we appoint. It is further objected that some churches of the Protestants observe set times of fasting. Answer. In some churches there be set days and times of fasting—not upon necessity, or for conscience's or religion's sake—but for politic or civil regards.
Whereas, in the Romish Church it is held a mortal sin to defer the set time of fasting until the next day following.
Second, 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, water, electuaries, and that often within the compass of their appointed fast. Yes, they allow the eating of one meal on a fasting day at noontide, and upon a reasonable cause one hour before the time of fasting not yet ended. But this practice indeed is absurd and contrary to the practice of the Old Testament [Judg. 10:26; 1 Sam. 1:12]. Yes, it frustrates the end of fasting. For the 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, as white meat only to be used on their fasting days, and that of necessity—and for conscience's sake in most cases.
But we hold this distinction of meats both to be 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, etc., 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. "Sanctify a fast…let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber and the bride out of her bride chamber" (Joel 2:15). "I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine within my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three weeks of days were fulfilled" (Dan. 10:3). "Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer" (1 Cor. 7:5).
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"
(Titus 1:15). And 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 he might depend on Him and His Word for temporal blessings. In the first age, He appointed unto him for meat every herb of the earth
bearing seed, and every tree wherein there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed [Gen. 1:27]. And as for flesh, whether God gave unto him liberty to eat or not to eat, we hold it uncertain. 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 forbade 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 [Acts 10:13, 15]. This Word of His we rest upon; holding it a doctrine of devils for men to command an abstinence from meats for conscience's sake which the Lord Himself has created to be received with thanksgiving [1 Tim. 4:4]. Socrates, a Christian historiographer, says that, "The apostles left it free to everyone to use what kind of meat they would on fasting days and other times.
Spiridion, in lent, dressed swine's flesh and set it before a stranger, eating himself and bidding the stranger also to eat; who refusing and professing himself to be a Christian, 'Therefore,' says he, 'the rather must you do it; for to the pure all things are pure, as the Word of God teaches us.'"
Objection 1.
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 of it. "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 politic 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 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.
[Dan. 10:3.] Daniel, being in heaviness for three weeks of days, abstained from flesh; and his example is our warrant. Answer.
[First,] it was the manner of the holy men in ancient times, when they fasted many days together of their own accords, freely to abstain from sundry things—and thus Daniel abstained from flesh. But the popish abstinence from flesh is not free, but stands by commandment—and the omitting of it is a mortal sin. Again
[second], 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 till evening?
And 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.
Third, 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.
Third 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; and yet withal, being well used, we esteem it as a prop or furtherance of the worship in that we are made the fitter by it to worship God [Mark
7:6]. And 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 in—or with —devotion, is a work of satisfaction to God's justice for the temporal punishment of our sins." Wherein we take it they do blasphemously derogate from Christ our Savior, who is the whole and perfect satisfaction for sin, both in respect of fault and punishment. Here