11. OF FASTS.

a) Practice of the Early Christians. The doctrine and practice of our Lord and his apostles respecting fasting may be thus descri bed. Our Saviour neglected the observance of those stated Jewish fasts which had been superadded to the Mosaic law, and introduced especially after the captivity, to which the Pharisees paid scrupulous attention, Matt. 11: 18, 19; and he represented such observances as inconsistent with the genius of his religion, Matt. 9: 14-18; and parallel passages, Mark 2: 15-22. Luke 5: 33-39. The practice of voluntary and occasional fasting he neither prohibited nor enjoined; he spoke of it, however, as being not unsuitable on certain occasions, nor without its use in certain cases, Matt. 9: 15. 17: 21; he fasted himself on a great and solemn occasion, Matt. 4: 2; and he warned his disciples against all ostentatious and hypocritical observances of this kind, Matt. 6: 16-18. The doctrine of the apostles on this subject was to the same purport, neither commanding the practice of fasting, nor denouncing it as unlawful, unless either the observance or omission should involve a breach of some moral and christian duty, Rom. 14: 14-22. Col. 2: 16-23. 1 Tim. 4: 3-5. In practice, the apostles joined fasting with prayer, on solemn occasions, Acts 13: 2, 3. 14: 23.

It does not appear that much value was attached to the practice of fasting, in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles. In the Shepherd of Hermas it is spoken of in disparaging terms. "Nothing is done, nothing is gained, for virtue by bodily abstinence; rather so fast, that you do no wrong, and harbor no evil passion in your heart." It appears rather singular that we find so little notice taken of fasting by the writers of the first centuries, if we take into account the spirit of the times, and especially the doctrines of Montanus, the tenets of the new Platonic school, and the progress of Gnosticism, which taught that matter was essentially evil. But it seems that the observance of fasts was introduced into the church slowly and by degrees. We learn from Justin Martyr that fasting was joined with prayer, at Ephesus, in the administration of baptism; which is worthy of being remarked as an early addition to the origi nal institution. In the second century, in the time of Victor and Irenaeus, it had become usual to fast before Easter; and Clement of

Alexandria speaks of weekly fasts. Tertullian, a Montanist, in his treatise De Jejunio, complains heavily of the little attention paid by the Catholic church to the practice of fasting; and hereby gives us to understand that, in his days, a large portion of orthodox Christians exercised that liberty of judgment which had been sanctioned by the apostles. Origen, in his voluminous writings, adverts to the subject only once; namely, in his tenth homily on Leviticus. And here he speaks in accordance with the apostolical doctrine. It appears, however, from his observations, that at Alexandria Wednesdays and Fridays were then observed as fast days; on the ground that our Lord was betrayed on a Wednesday, and crucified on a Friday. The custom of the church at the end of the fourth century may be collected from the following passage of Epiphanius: "In the whole christian church the following fast days, throughout the year, are regularly observed. On Wednesdays and Fridays we fast until the ninth hour (i. e. three o'clock in the afternoon); except during the interval of fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide, in which it is usual neither to kneel nor fast at all. Besides this, there is no fasting on the Epiphany or Nativity, if those days should fall on a Wednesday or Friday. But those persons who especially devote themselves to religious exercises (the monks) fast also at other times when they please, except on Sundays and during the fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide. It is also the practice of the church to observe the forty days' fast before the sacred week. But on Sundays there is no fasting, even during the last mentioned period. (Comp. Doctr. de fide.)" But even at this late date there was no universal agreement in the practice of the church in this matter, neither had fasts been established by law. The custom, so far as it existed, had been silently introduced into the church, and its observance was altogether voluntary. This fasting consisted, at first, in abstinence from food until three o'clock in the afternoon. A custom was afterwards introduced, probably by the Montanists, affecting the kind of food to be taken, which was limited to bread, salt, and

water.

b) Practice of Later Times. But fasting, after a time, ceased to be a voluntary exercise. By the second canon of the council of Orleans, A. D. 541, it was decreed that any one who should neglect to observe the stated times of abstinence should be treated as an offender against the laws of the church. The eighth council of Toledo,

in the seventh century, (can. 9,) condemns any who should eat flesh during the fast before Easter, and says that such offenders deserve to be forbidden the use of it throughout the year. In the eighth century, fasting began to be regarded as a meritorious work; and the breach of the observance, at the stated seasons, subjected the offender to excommunication. In later times, some persons who ate flesh during the appointed seasons of abstinence were punished with the loss of their teeth (Baronius, Annal. ad. an. 1018.)

Afterwards, however, these severities were, to a certain extent, relaxed. Instead of the former limitation of diet on fast days to bread, salt, and water, permission was given for the use of all kinds of food, except flesh, eggs, cheese, and wine. Then eggs, cheese, and wine were allowed, flesh only being prohibited; an indulgence which was censured by the Greek church, and led to a quarrel between it and the western. In the thirteenth century, a cold collation in the evening of fast days was permitted.

CHAPTER XXII.

SACRED SEASONS OF THE PURITANS.

THE subject of the Fasts and Thanksgivings of New England is an interesting and neglected portion of the history of our puritan forefathers, which the author has great pleasure in presenting to the reader, from the hand of a distinguished antiquary and historian, the Rev. Joseph B. Felt of Boston; who, with his accustomed diligence and patient research has investigated this portion of our ecclesiastical history, and has very kindly embodied the result of his inquiries in the following treatise for this work.

Fasts and Thanksgivings of New England, with additional Remarks on such days in other parts of the United States.

1. Preliminary Remarks. Natural religion, as enlightened by original revelation however deteriorated, has long instructed man,

that he has sins enough for humility and mercies enough for gratitude. Hence it is, that ancient as well as modern nations, the history of whose worship has come down to our day, have had their seasons for giving expression to such affections of the soul. Hence, also, the wisdom of God in requiring this service from his once favored people. In accordance with such example, the primitive Christians adopted days, commemorative of events, as full of interest to them, as others had been to the Jews. These days were so far increased by the Catholic church and so far observed by the Episcopal church of England, as to meet, for the most part, with the disapprobation of Dissenters. Among the last denomination, who sought for greater simplicity in the forms of worship, was the celebrated John Robinson. His church in Leyden believed with him, that no other holy days should be observed, except sabbaths and occasional fasts and thanksgivings. The portion of his flock, who resolved to forsake Europe and make their home in America, for the sake of purer society and the spread of the gospel,* had several seasons of fasting and prayer, as preparatory to so important an enterprise, within a few months, before they sailed for South Hampton. So disposed, they would sooner have thought of parting with all their worldly substance, than of omitting duties of public thanks and humiliation before their Maker. The same times, which they hallowed in their European pilgrimage, were engraved too deeply on the calendar of their sacred occasions, to be thus forgotten in their more perilous, needy and changeful pilgrimage in this country. Hence, with their hopes and fears, their purposes and piety, they brought hither the observance of fasts and thanksgivings.

2. Reasons for such days. As well known to those who have investigated the history of the planters at Plymouth, they had reasons for preferring these days to similar ones of the Episcopal order. They discountenanced the rubric, clerical robes and bands, marriage with a ring, baptism by the sign of a cross, and such particulars-enjoined by canonical rules of England-because adopted from the Papal forms, and fitted to turn back the liberty of Protestantism to the bondage. of Romish hierarchy. So, for a like cause, they cast off the confinement of holy seasons except sabbath, to particular days and months of each successive year. Their arguments for such an alteration had much force to their perception, * Prince's New England Chronology, pp. 66, 69, 70.

when they saw how much the high church party, in their native land, leaned towards Papacy, and how bitter were their prejudices against those who were non-conformists, but who earnestly sought for greater purity in doctrine and more simplicity in ceremonies. As an additional weight in the scale of their judgment, they had not forgotten, that adherence to Romish rules was one of the chief means, under the reign of Mary, which contributed to the relapse of Protestantism to Papacy. They were not so far unacquainted with human nature, as to be ignorant, that it possessed a principle which is wrought on by the association of appearances, and which, when having repudiated error, and still retaining its forms, is far more likely to fall back upon it, than if having altogether renounced both one and the other. Their reason for deviation from established custom, as now in view, was much stronger in their time than it was subsequently, when Congregationalism had risen from its infancy and numerous depressions to the stature and energy of manhood, so as to have little fear of an inroad upon its privileges. They well knew, that the fasts and thanksgivings of the conformists were designed, like their own, to improve the moral affections and keep man within the salutary restraints of duty; and that the effects of these seasons, when properly observed by any sect, were of so desirable a kind.— Hence it was that serious Episcopalians considered the distinction which the Puritans made, relative to this subject, as more the result of needless fear than of real cause.

Thomas Lechford, a respectable lawyer, who resided several years in Massachusetts and returned to England in 1641,-made the subsequent remark on our ecclesiastical usages.* "There are dayes of fasting, thanksgiving and prayers upon occasions, but no holy dayes,t except Sunday. And why not set fasting dayes and times, and set feasts, as well as set Synods in the Reformed Churches? And why not holy dayes as well as the fifth of November, and dayes of Purim among the Jews?" This author hereby seems to imply, that there could be no more harm in complying with the prescribed religious seasons of Episcopacy,-than there was

* News from New England in 3d Ser. Vol. III. p. 79 of Mass, Hist. Coll. Lechford here appears to mean those holy days, that were kept in the established church. The Puritans so far held their fasts and thanksgivings holy, as to require, by penal enactments, that they should be spent with the sacredness of the sabbath.