ART. II-THE DUTY OF FASTING.

THAT Fasting is enjoined in the Bible as a religious duty, will scarcely be questioned by any who have carefully examined the subject. Still, there may be much difference of opinion among pious people as to what that duty is; by what authority it is made obligatory; how, and on what occasions, it should be observed; and what are its beneficial results. To arrive at safe conclusions on all these points, reference must be had to the law and to the testimony. In such questions, mere human authority is not sufficient: to settle them requires Scriptural precept and divine sanction. Whoever presumes to set up his own judgment in opposition to the sacred record, or to teach what it does not warrant, as essential to salvation, should not be regarded as a safe instructor of those who wish to find the path of life. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God."

The point of inquiry which requires attention first of all, is, What is fasting, in the sense of the inspired authors? On this subject various opinions have been, and still are, entertained and propagated; and among them is the singular one, that fasting is simply "refraining from sin." To refrain from sinning is in itself certainly right and commendable; but to insist on that as the sense of the term fasting, involves at least one serious difficulty. Fasting is not, and cannot be, practised daily and continuously; it is only occasional; and if to fast is to refrain from sin, then we are required to refrain from sin only on fast-days, which would imply that on all other days we may sin with impunity; whereas the Bible, which enjoins fasting, forbids sin at all times and in every place, and that under fearful penalty. "Awake to righteousness and sin not;"-"The wages of sin is death;"-"The soul that sins shall die." It is declared of the Lord Jesus Christ, on the occasion of his temptation in the wilderness, "When he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered." Now will any one presume to say that He, after abstaining from sin forty days, hungered for it? We trust not; and yet, to be consistent, all who contend that fasting is simply refraining from sin, would have to admit the blasphemous conclusion.

Another view of the subject, and one entertained by many who regard themselves as the only true Church of Christ, is, that fasting is merely a change in the manner of living, from the use of certain articles of food to the use of others. While their conscience, acting in the light of their creed, or more properly in the darkness of it, will not allow them on any consideration to eat meat during certain FOURTH SERIES, VOL. 1-14

days of the week, and certain weeks of the year, it does strangely allow them, on the same days and weeks, to eat fish, butter, eggs, vegetables, fruits, and most luxuries of the country. It is really amusing to read over a printed bill of sumptuous fare, made out by a prelate who assumes to have the consciences of the people in his own keeping, for a forty days' fast. Serious as the subject is, to read of a "fish-dinner" on fast-day is enough to excite a smile. To us this appears to be a singular kind of fasting,—one which requires but little sacrifice of taste or self-denial, and which need not diminish the strength or flesh of those who practise it, however long the fast may be protracted. Daniel and his fellow-captives, while receiving their court education, were sustained only on pulse and water; and yet, at the period of examination, "their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat" and drank of his "wine." And why should not any healthy individual gain both flesh and strength during "Lent," with all its various substantials and luxuries? Such feasting may justly be regarded as a burlesque on the Christian duty of fasting. How different was the case with the devoted Psalmist, when he said, "My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness!" Psa. cix, 24.

To fast in the proper sense of the term, is to abstain entirely from food and drink of every kind for a given time,-the period of such abstinence to be determined by the circumstances of the individual, and the nature of the occasion which moves him to observe it. The king of Nineveh, under just apprehension of the judgments of the Almighty, proclaimed a general fast, saying, "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water." Jonah iii, 7. Saul, afterward Paul, when stricken down by the power of God, and brought under sore conviction of sin, “was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." Acts ix, 9. Many other facts similar to these might be recited, going to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that fasting, in the Scriptural sense of the term, is neither refraining occasionally from sin, nor a mere change of diet, but entire abstinence from all temporal refreshments of every sort for a given time.

Having settled the meaning of the term fasting,-very briefly, it is true, but, as we trust, satisfactorily, at least to such as believe the Bible, the next point which claims attention is the authority for observing this duty as above explained.

This authority, to be satisfactory, must be clear and unequivocal, and from a source entitled to universal respect. Such authority, we maintain, is abundantly furnished in the Holy Scriptures, in the

recorded examples of inspired religious teachers, and in plain and obvious precept. In regard to the first, it is in place to observe, that the example of uninspired persons, however pious, is not good authority; and therefore may be imitated or not, according to our own conviction of duty, without involving the sin of omission. Uninspired men are as liable to be mistaken as ourselves. Perhaps most of the truly pious, from Moses to the present day, have fasted, and their example might be profitably imitated;-but of itself it imposes no obligation upon us. But with inspired men the case is different. When a man was called of God to be a Prophet or an Apostle, and was inspired by the Holy Ghost, he became an infallible teacher of religious doctrine, experience, and practice, and whatever duty he enforced by example, as an inspired man, was obligatory upon others, as far as applicable to their cases. The holy Prophets of the Old Testament and the holy Apostles of the New Testament were all inspired men;-as such they fasted, and did it understandingly, and thereby settled the practice of fasting as a duty in the Church, Jewish and Christian. They were not deluded fanatics, but holy men of God, speaking and acting as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and consequently their example rested upon others in this respect, and now rests upon us, with the force of religious obligation.

In addition to the example of inspired men on the subject of fasting as a religious duty, we have the authority of direct divine precept. That God required the Jews to fast on the day of expiation, and on other occasions, will probably be admitted by all careful Bible readers, and hence we shall not occupy the room which would be requisite for inserting the proofs. And it is equally clear that our Lord and his Apostles taught the Christians to fast, both by precept and example, not at regularly recurring periods, but as an occasional duty. Christ gave his disciples special directions how to perform the duty of fasting, and therefore, by fair inference, gave it his sanction, as it cannot be presumed that he would give them direction. how to perform an act which was either unlawful or useless. The certain proof that our Saviour did give such direction is found in sundry places, and, among others, in Matt. vi, 16-18, which we shall have occasion to cite hereafter.

Again, when interrogated by the disciples of John Baptist, why they and the Pharisees fasted frequently, while his disciples fasted not, "Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." Matt. ix, 15. Here our Lord compares the season of

his personal intercourse with his disciples to a festival at or after a wedding; which, being a time of feasting and rejoicing, was not a proper time for fasting, and hence it was not required of them at that time. But, alluding to the time when his personal intercourse with them on earth should cease, and to all aftertimes of conflict and trouble, he said, "Then shall they fast." Now, this last phrase, "Then shall they fast," is not to be regarded as a mere prophecy that such an event should transpire, but as an expressed sanction of it, and an assurance that it would be done; as if he had said, "Though I do not wish my disciples to fast while I am personally with them, I do approve of their fasting after I shall have been taken from them."

Moreover, our Lord taught that there were some evil spirits in man which could not be dislodged without fasting, saying, "This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting." Of course, when other means have been tried without success, that of adding fasting to prayer should not be neglected: it comes in as the last resort. And what our Saviour taught his disciples respecting the duty of fasting by word, he enforced by his own example, only with more severity on himself than they were capable of enduring: "When he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered." Now, in view of all these recorded facts,-that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was "God manifest in the flesh," and "spake as man never spake," prescribed the manner of fasting, authorized his disciples to fast after he should be taken from them, and added his own personal example to enforce his teaching,—it is difficult to account for the hesitancy of some people in admitting that fasting is a Christian duty, and their slowness of heart to believe it is required of them. It was not so with the Apostles.

That the inspired Apostles, who were eye and ear witnesses of what Christ taught and did, regarded fasting as an important part of Christian duty, is certain from the following facts:-First, they practised it themselves, “In all things approving themselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings," (2 Cor. vi, 4, 5.) Secondly, they enjoined fasting on others, saying to husbands and wives, "Give yourselves to fasting and prayer," (1 Cor. vii, 5.) And what inspired Apostles practised themselves, and required private Church members to practise, must certainly be regarded as a Christian duty, by all who take the Holy Scriptures for the rule of their faith and conduct.

We shall next turn our attention to the occasions of fasting. And here let it be premised, that stated fasts at regularly recurring periods,

such as were practised by Pharisees, and are still required by Papists, were not appointed, commanded, or practised by our Lord or his Apostles. The Pharisees fasted "twice in the week" statedly, on certain days of the week; but all the authority they had for doing so was the "tradition of the elders," which, Christ declared, "made void the commandments of God." The Papists pretend to observe as regular fasts, certain days of the week and certain weeks of the year; but all the authority they have for that practice is found in the tradition of the Fathers, the decrees of councils, the bulls of popes, and the proclamations of bishops,-all which savours strongly of the work of supererogation, and is therefore not only without any Divine sanction, but is contrary to the Divine will, as revealed in the new covenant.

While considering this point, it is proper to remark, that in the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, "fasting or abstinence" is included among the "general rules," but without designating any definite or stated time of fasting. Again, among the duties of a preacher in charge, is the following: "He shall take care that a fast be held, in every society in his circuit, on the Friday preceding every quarterly meeting." The time of the quarterly meeting, however, is not regulated by the moon's phases, nor by a particular Sabbath in the month, nor anything of the kind; but is appointed from quarter to quarter, with reference to convenience and utility, and the quarterly fast goes with it. All we claim for this rule is, that it is a "prudential regulation," not possessing the force of divine law. As such, we approve and defend it, as one calculated to promote uniformity, and secure general attention on the part of Church members. The fast was appointed on Friday, because the framers of the rule intended the quarterly meeting to follow on Saturday and Sabbath,not because the New Testament Scriptures designate any particular day of the week as a day of fasting. It is likewise probable that our fathers fixed on Friday, in common with other evangelical Churches, as being suitable, because it was understood to be the day of the week on which our Saviour suffered. All these considerations were proper in establishing a prudential regulation. We maintain that in regard to the duty of fasting, as well as in regard to other duties enjoined in the Word of God, some things are left to be determined by circumstances. For example, Christ said to his ministers, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" but did not say the gospel should be preached on the first day, or some other day of the week,-that it should be preached in the forenoon, afternoon, or evening; nor that it should be preached in a house called a church, or some other building, or in the open air, but sim