Letters 36.17–38.3

He also brings in the apostle's testimony where he says, 'The kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit', and wants the kingdom of God to be understood as the church, in which God reigns. I implore you, was the apostle aiming, when he said this, at having Christians fast on the Sabbath? He was not even speaking of fasting on any day at all when he said it. For it was said against those who, in the manner of the Jews according to the old law, thought there was purity in observing certain foods, and to admonish those brothers whose indifferent taking of food and drink scandalized the weak. So when he had said, 'Do not by your food destroy him for whom Christ died', and, 'So do not let our good be blasphemed', he then added, 'For the kingdom of God is not food and drink', and the rest. For if these words of the apostle are understood as this man understands them, that the kingdom of God, which is the church, is not in food and drink but in fasting, then we ought, I do not say to fast on Sabbaths, but never to take food and drink at all, lest we ever depart from this kingdom of God. But I think that, as he himself admits, we belong to the church somewhat more religiously on the Lord's day, when nevertheless, with his own concession, we dine.

'Why', he says, 'should we murmur at offering to the more powerful Lord a dear sacrifice, which the Spirit desires and the angel praises?' Then he adds the testimony of the angel who says, 'Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving.' What he meant by 'to the more powerful Lord' we do not know, unless perhaps the copyist made an error and it escaped you, so that you did not correct what you sent me to read. He wants fasting to be understood, then, as the sacrifice dear to the Lord, as if this question were about fasting and not about fasting on the Sabbath. For the Lord's day does not pass without a sacrifice dear to God just because there is no fasting. He goes on and piles up testimonies entirely foreign to the cause he undertook to defend. 'Offer to God a sacrifice of praise', he says; and wishing somehow to connect this verse of the divine psalm with the matter in hand, he says: 'certainly not a banquet of blood or drunkenness, in which, with the devil's support, not the praises due to God but blasphemies grow wild like a forest.' O improvident presumption! Is the sacrifice of praise, then, not offered on the Lord's day, because there is no fasting, but is a banquet of drunkenness held, and do blasphemies grow wild with the devil's support? If this is wicked to say, let him understand that fasting is not what is signified in the words, 'Offer to God a sacrifice of praise.' For fasting is not practised on certain days, especially feasts, but the sacrifice of praise is offered by the church spread throughout the world on all days. Otherwise (what no one, I do not say no Christian, but not even a madman would dare to say) those fifty days after Easter until Pentecost, on which there is no fasting, will according to him be strangers to the sacrifice of praise; yet it is on these days only that Alleluia is sung in many churches, and in all churches especially, and no Christian, however unskilled, is unaware that it is a word of praise.

Yet he himself admits that on the Lord's day one dines not in drunkenness but in gladness, when he says that we, the few chosen from Jews and Gentiles by faith in the Christian name, ought to offer to God with praises, as the evening incense of the Sabbath instead of animal victims, a fast pleasing to God, by whose fervour the works of sins may be burnt up and fail. 'And in the morning', he says, 'he will hear us, as we have heard him, and we shall have houses to eat and drink in, not in drunkenness but in gladness, when the Lord's-day celebration is completed.' Then, therefore, a eulogia is celebrated, not, as he said above, an alogia. But what offends him in the Sabbath day, which God sanctified, I do not know, that he thinks one cannot eat and drink on it with a gladness free of drunkenness, since we could fast before the Sabbath in the same way as he says one should fast on the Sabbath before the Lord's day. Or does he think it wicked to dine on two consecutive days? Then let him see how great an insult he inflicts on the Roman church itself, where even in those weeks in which there is fasting on the fourth and sixth day and on the Sabbath, there is nevertheless dining on three consecutive days, namely the Lord's day and then the second and third days.

'It is certain', he says, 'that the life of all depends on the judgment of the pastors; but woe to those who call good evil, and darkness light and light darkness, and bitter sweet and sweet bitter.' What these words of his mean I do not well understand. For if he writes this to you as a man of the city, meaning that in the city the people, depending on the pastor's judgment, fast on the Sabbath with their bishop; or if he wrote it to you because in your letter you yourself said something of the kind: let him not persuade you so to praise the Christian city for fasting on the Sabbath that you are forced to condemn the Christian world for dining. For when he says, 'Woe to those who call good evil, and darkness light and light darkness, and bitter sweet and sweet bitter', wishing the Sabbath fast to be understood as good, light and sweet, and the meal as evil, darkness and bitter, who can doubt that in all Christians who dine on the Sabbath he condemns the whole world? He neither looks at himself nor attends to those to whom he is speaking, so as to be restrained from this headlong audacity by his own writings. For he at once added: 'So let no one judge you in food or in drink', which he himself certainly does when he rebukes in this way those who take food and drink on the Sabbath. How little it would have taken for this to bring to his mind another saying of the same apostle elsewhere: 'Let him who eats not despise him who does not eat, and let him who does not eat not judge him who eats'! In this way he would keep between those who fast on the Sabbath and those who eat the moderation by which scandals are avoided, so that whoever eats would not despise him who does not eat, and he who does not eat would not judge him who eats.

'Peter too', he says, 'the head of the apostles, doorkeeper of heaven and foundation of the church, after the destruction of Simon, who had been a figure of the devil, who can be overcome only by fasting, taught this very thing to the Romans, whose faith is proclaimed in the whole world.' Did the other apostles, then, teach Christians throughout the whole world to dine, against Peter? Just as Peter and his fellow disciples lived in harmony with one another, so let those who fast on the Sabbath, whom Peter planted, and those who dine on the Sabbath, whom his fellow disciples planted, live in harmony with one another. There is indeed this opinion held by very many, although most Romans declare it false, that the apostle Peter, being about to contend with Simon Magus on the Lord's day, fasted the day before with the church of that city because of the very danger of so great a trial, and, having obtained so prosperous and glorious a success, kept the same custom, and some churches of the West have imitated it. But if, as this man says, Simon Magus was a figure of the devil, that tempter is plainly not a Sabbath or Lord's-day tempter but a daily one; and yet we do not fast against him daily, since we dine on all Lord's days and on the fifty days after Easter, and in various places on the solemn days of martyrs and on all feasts; and yet the devil is overcome, if our eyes are always toward the Lord, that he may pluck our feet out of the snare, and if, whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, we do all to the glory of God and, as far as in us lies, give no offence to Jews or Greeks or the church of God. This is little considered by those who eat with offence or fast with offence and by either kind of intemperance stir up scandals, by which the devil is not overcome but rejoices.

And if it is answered that James taught at Jerusalem, John at Ephesus and the others in other places what Peter taught at Rome, namely to fast on the Sabbath, but that the other lands strayed from this teaching and Rome stood firm in it; and if on the contrary it is retorted that rather some places in the West, among them Rome, did not keep what the apostles handed down, while the lands of the East, where the gospel itself began to be preached, remained without any variation in what was handed down by all the apostles together with Peter himself, namely not to fast on the Sabbath, then this contention is endless, begetting quarrels, not ending questions. Let there be, then, one faith of the whole church spread everywhere, as it were within in the members, even if that very unity of faith is celebrated with certain different observances, by which what is true in the faith is in no way hindered. For all the beauty of the king's daughter is within. Those observances which are celebrated variously are understood as being in her garment, whence it is said there: 'Clothed with golden fringes in variety.' But let that garment too be varied by different celebrations in such a way that it is not torn apart by opposing contentions.

'Finally', he says, 'if the Jew denies the Lord's day by keeping the Sabbath, how does the Christian observe the Sabbath? Either we are Christians and keep the Lord's day, or we are Jews and observe the Sabbath; for no one can serve two masters.' Does he not speak as though the Sabbath had one lord and the Lord's day another? Nor does he hear what he himself mentioned: 'For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.' And in wishing us to be as alien from the Sabbath as the Jews are from the Lord's day, does he not err so far that he could even say that we ought not to accept the law and the prophets, as the Jews do not accept the gospel and the apostles? You certainly understand what evil a man savours who savours this. 'But', he says, 'all old things have passed away, and in Christ they have been made new.' This is true; and that is why we do not rest on Sabbaths as the Jews do, even if, to signify the rest which was signified by that day, we relax the bond of fasting while keeping Christian sobriety and frugality; and if some of our brothers do not think the Sabbath rest should be signified by relaxing the fast, we in no way quarrel about the variety of the royal garment, lest we trouble the inner members of the queen herself, where we hold one faith even about that rest. For although, because old things have passed away, the carnal Sabbath rest has passed away with them, yet we do not serve two masters because we dine on the Sabbath and the Lord's day without superstitious rest, since there is one Lord of both the Sabbath and the Lord's day.

But this man, who says that the old things have passed away in such a way that 'in Christ the ara yielded to the altare, the sword to fasting, fire to prayers, the beast to bread, blood to the cup', does not know that the word altare occurs more often in the writings of the law and the prophets, and that an altare was set up for God first in the tabernacle made through Moses, and that the word ara too is found in the apostolic writings, where the martyrs cry out under the ara of God. He says the sword yielded to fasting, not remembering the sword with which the soldiers of the gospel are armed from both testaments, the two-edged sword. He says fire yielded to prayers, as if prayers were not brought into the temple then too, and as if fire has not now been sent by Christ into the world. He says the beast yielded to bread, as if he did not know that then too the loaves of the presence used to be placed on the Lord's table, and that now he himself receives a part of the body of the spotless Lamb. He says blood yielded to the cup, not reflecting that even now he receives blood in the cup. How much better and more fittingly, then, would he say that the old things have passed away and new things have been made in Christ in such a way that altar yielded to altar, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, beast to beast, blood to blood! For in all these we see the carnal oldness yielding to spiritual newness. So it must be understood that, whether on this seventh day of the turning week one dines, or some even fast, the carnal Sabbath has nevertheless yielded to the spiritual Sabbath; since in the latter the true and everlasting rest is desired, while in the former the temporal resting, now superstitious, is despised.

The rest that follows, with which he concludes his disputation, like some other things in it which I did not think worth mentioning, is still less relevant to the case, in which the dispute is about fasting or dining on the Sabbath. But I leave it to you to notice and judge, especially if you are helped by anything I have said. If, however, since I think I have answered him sufficiently, as far as I could, you ask my own opinion on this matter: turning it over in my mind, I see that fasting is commanded in the gospel and apostolic writings and in the whole instrument called the New Testament. But on which days one ought not to fast and on which one ought, I do not find defined by any command of the Lord or of the apostles. And for this reason I do think that relaxing the fast is more fitting than tightening it, not indeed for obtaining the righteousness which faith obtains, in which is the beauty of the king's daughter within, but for signifying the everlasting rest, where the true Sabbath is.

Yet in this matter of fasting or dining on the Sabbath nothing seems to me safer and more peaceful to observe than that he who eats should not despise him who does not eat, and he who does not eat should not judge him who eats, because if we eat we shall not abound, and if we do not eat we shall not lack; keeping, of course, the fellowship of those among whom we live, and with whom we live for God, unoffended in these matters. For just as what the apostle says is true, that it is evil for a man who eats with offence, so it is evil for a man who fasts with offence. Let us not, then, be like those who, seeing John neither eating nor drinking, said, 'He has a demon'; nor again like those who, seeing Christ eating and drinking, said, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' To these words the Lord himself added something very necessary, saying: 'And wisdom is justified by her children.' If you ask who these are, read what is written: 'The children of wisdom are the church of the righteous.' These are they who, when they eat, do not despise those who do not eat, and when they do not eat, do not judge those who eat; but they plainly despise or judge those who either do not eat or eat so as to give offence.

About the Sabbath day the case is easier, because the Roman church fasts, and some others too, though few, whether near it or far off. But to fast on the Lord's day is a great scandal, especially since the heresy of the Manichaeans became known, detestable and most openly contrary to the Catholic faith and the divine Scriptures, which appointed this day as the lawful fast day for their hearers. Through this it has come about that fasting on the Lord's day is held in greater horror; unless perhaps someone is able to prolong a fast beyond a week without any refreshment in between, so as to approach the forty days' fast as nearly as he can, as we know some have done. For it was asserted to us by most trustworthy brothers that one man even reached the very number of forty. For just as in the times of the ancient fathers Moses and Elijah did nothing against Sabbath meals when they fasted forty days, so one who can pass seven days fasting has not chosen the Lord's day for fasting, but found it among the many days he vowed to fast. Yet if a fast, even a continuous one, is to be broken within the week, it is broken on no day more fittingly than on the Lord's day. But if the body is refreshed after a week, the Lord's day is certainly not chosen for fasting but is found within the number which one decided to vow.

Nor should anyone be moved by the fact that the Priscillianists, who are very like the Manichaeans, usually bring forward a testimony from the Acts of the Apostles for fasting on the Lord's day, when the apostle Paul was at Troas. For thus it is written: 'On the first day of the week, when we were gathered to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart the next day, and prolonged his speech until midnight.' Then, when he had gone down from the upper room where they were gathered to raise the young man who, overcome by sleep, had fallen from the window and was being carried out dead, Scripture speaks thus of the apostle himself: 'When he had gone up again and had broken bread and eaten, and had talked a long while, until daybreak, so he departed.' Far be it that this be taken to mean that the apostles were accustomed to fast solemnly on the Lord's day. For the day now called the Lord's day was then called the first of the week, as is found more plainly in the gospels. For the day of the Lord's resurrection is called by Matthew the first of the week and by the other three one of the week, and it is agreed that it is the day which was afterwards called the Lord's day. Either, then, they had gathered at the beginning of the night after the Sabbath day had ended, a night which certainly already belonged to the Lord's day, that is, to the first of the week; and so on that same night, intending to break bread as it is broken in the sacrament of the body of Christ, he prolonged his speech until midnight, so that after the sacraments had been celebrated he might talk again with the gathering until daybreak and, being in great haste, depart as the Lord's day dawned. Or certainly, if they had gathered on the first of the week not by night but by day, at an hour of the Lord's day, the reason for prolonging the speech is expressed in the very words, 'Paul talked with them, intending to depart the next day': he was about to depart and wished to instruct them sufficiently. They were not, then, solemnly fasting on the Lord's day; but it did not seem right to the apostle, who was about to set out, to interrupt for the refreshment of the body a necessary discourse which was being heard with the ardour of the most fervent zeal, since because of his other journeys in every direction he either never or very rarely visited them again, especially as he was then about to leave those lands in such a way, as what follows shows, that he would not see them again in the flesh. And by this it is rather shown that fasts on the Lord's days were not customary for them, because, lest this be believed, the writer of the book took care to set out the reason for prolonging the speech, so that we might know that, if some necessity arises, a meal should not be preferred to more urgent business. And yet by those who were listening most eagerly and thinking that the very fountain was about to depart, and who therefore drank in whatever flowed, with a great thirst, not for water but for the word, without being satisfied, not only the bodily midday meal but even supper was disregarded.

But although fasts were not customary for them then on the Lord's day, it was nevertheless no such notable offence to the church if, under some such necessity as the apostle Paul had, they did not trouble to refresh their bodies the whole Lord's day until midnight or even until daybreak. But now, since heretics, and especially the most impious, have begun to practise fasts on the Lord's day, not because of some necessity that has arisen, but to teach them as established by a sacred solemnity, and have become known to the Christian peoples, I certainly think that not even under such a necessity as the apostle had should what he did be done, lest a greater evil be incurred by the scandal than the good gained from the word. Yet whatever cause or necessity may arise for a Christian to be compelled to fast on the Lord's day (as we also find in the Acts of the Apostles, in the danger of shipwreck, when the apostle himself was on board, that there was fasting for fourteen days and therefore on two Lord's days), we ought in no way to doubt that the Lord's day, when several days are not vowed to be continued without any refreshment, should not be counted among fast days.

As to why the church fasts especially on the fourth and sixth day, the reason given seems to be this: when the gospel is considered, it is on the fourth day of the week, which is commonly called the fourth feria, that the Jews are found to have taken counsel to kill the Lord. Then one day intervened, at the evening of which the Lord ate the Passover with his disciples; that was the end of the day which we call the fifth of the week. Then he was betrayed on that night which already belonged to the sixth of the week, which is plainly the day of his passion. This day was the first of unleavened bread, beginning from the evening. But the evangelist Matthew says that the fifth of the week was the first of unleavened bread, because at its following evening the paschal supper was to take place, at which supper the eating of unleavened bread and the sacrifice of the lamb began. From this it is gathered that it was the fourth of the week when the Lord said, 'You know that after two days the Passover will come, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.' And for this reason that day itself was assigned to fasting, because, as the evangelist goes on to say, then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel to seize Jesus by stealth and kill him. Then one day intervened, of which the gospel says, 'On the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where do you wish us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?' After this intervening day the Lord suffered, as no one doubts, on the sixth of the week. Therefore the sixth day too is rightly assigned to fasting; for fasts signify humility. Hence it is said: 'And I humbled my soul with fasting.'

There follows the Sabbath, on which day the flesh of Christ rested in the tomb, just as in the first works of the world God rested on that day from all his works. From this arose that variety in the royal garment: some, especially the peoples of the East, preferred to relax the fast in order to signify rest, while others, like the Roman church and some churches of the West, fast because of the humility of the Lord's death. On the one Sabbath on which Easter is celebrated, however, to renew the memory of what happened, when the disciples grieved humanly over the Lord's death, all fast, so that even those who dine on the other Sabbaths throughout the year keep the fast of that Sabbath most devoutly; thus signifying both things, the mourning of the disciples on the one annual day, and on the other Sabbaths the good of rest. For there are two things that make us hope for the happiness of the righteous and the end of all misery: death and the resurrection of the dead. In death there is rest, of which it is said through the prophet: 'My people, enter your chambers, hide yourself for a little while, until the wrath of the Lord passes'; but in the resurrection there is perfect happiness in the whole man, that is, in flesh and spirit. Hence it came about that neither of these two was thought fit to be signified by the labour of fasting, but rather by the cheerfulness of refreshment; except the one paschal Sabbath, on which the mourning of the disciples, as we said, was to be marked by a longer fast, in memory of what happened.

But since, as I mentioned above, we do not find in the gospel and apostolic writings, which properly belong to the revelation of the New Testament, any clear command that fasts are to be observed on certain fixed days, and therefore this matter too, like very many others which are hard to enumerate, has found a place of variety in the garment of that king's daughter, that is, the church, I will tell you what the venerable Ambrose, bishop of Milan, by whom I was baptized, answered me when I asked about this. When my mother was with me in that city, and we, still catechumens, cared little about these things, she was anxious whether she ought to fast on the Sabbath according to the custom of our city or dine according to the custom of the church of Milan; to free her from this hesitation, I asked the man of God mentioned above. And he said: 'What more can I teach on this than what I do myself?' I had thought that by this answer he had prescribed nothing except that we should dine on the Sabbath; for I knew that he did this himself. But he went on to add: 'When I am here, I do not fast on the Sabbath; when I am at Rome, I fast on the Sabbath. And to whatever church you come,' he said, 'keep its custom, if you do not wish to suffer scandal or to cause it.' I reported this answer to my mother, and it satisfied her, and she did not doubt that it should be obeyed; we too have followed it. But since it happens, especially in Africa, that one church, or the churches of one region, have some members who dine on the Sabbath and others who fast, the custom to follow seems to me to be that of those to whom the government of these peoples' congregations has been entrusted. Therefore, if you willingly accept my counsel, especially since in this cause I have spoken perhaps more than was sufficient, at your request and urging, do not resist your bishop in this matter, and follow what he himself does without any scruple or dispute.

I have received, sent through the kindness of Your Holiness, a letter full of good joys: that you remember me and love me as you always have, and that whatever gifts the Lord has deigned to confer on me in his mercy, not for my merits, is a matter of great rejoicing for you. In it I drank in your fatherly affection toward me, which I did not find sudden and new in your most kind heart, but recognized again as fully tried and known, most blessed lord, to be embraced with reverence and most sincere love.

From where has such good fortune come to the literary labour we have sweated over in writing certain books, that they should be read by Your Worthiness, except that the Lord, to whom my soul is subject, wished to console my cares and to refresh me from the fear with which I must be anxious in such works, lest perhaps through lack of learning or caution I stumble somewhere, even on the most level plain of truth? For when what I write pleases you, I know whom it pleases, since I know who dwells in you. For the same distributor and bestower of all spiritual gifts has confirmed my obedience through your judgment. For whatever those writings contain that is worthy of your delight, God said in my ministry, 'Let it be', and it was made; but in your approval God saw that it was good.

As for the little questions you have deigned to bid me unravel, even if, entangled in my slowness, I did not understand them, I would open them up, helped by your merits. Only this I ask: that you pray to God for my weakness, and that, whether in these questions in which you kindly and in a fatherly way wished me to exercise myself, or in any others of ours that may perhaps come into your holy hands (for just as I consider what is God's gift, so too I consider my own errors), you not only bestow the care of a reader but also take up the censure of a corrector.

In the spirit, as far as it pleases the Lord and he deigns to supply strength, we are well; but in body I am in bed, for I can neither walk nor stand nor sit, because of the pain and swelling of fissures or external piles. But even so, since this pleases the Lord, what else is to be said but that we are well? For if we do not will what he wills, it is we who are to be blamed, rather than he who is to be thought to do or permit anything not rightly. You know all this; but since you are my other self, what would I more gladly say to you than what I say to myself? We therefore commend both our days and our nights to your holy prayers: pray for us, that we may not use the days intemperately, that we may bear the nights with an even mind, and that, even if we walk in the midst of the shadow of death, the Lord may be with us, so that we fear no evil.

That the aged Megalius has died, who doubts that you have already heard? When I wrote this, it was about twenty-four days since his body was laid to rest. We should like to know, if possible, whether you have already seen his successor in the primacy, as you were planning. There is no lack of offences, but no lack of refuge either; no lack of sorrows, but no lack of consolations either. And amid these things you know very well, my very good brother, how watchful we must be, that hatred of anyone may not hold the inmost part of the heart and so not allow us to pray to God in our chamber with the door shut, but shut the door against God himself. It creeps in, moreover, because to no one who is angry does his own anger seem unjust. For so anger, growing old, becomes hatred, while the sweetness mixed with it, as though it were a just grievance, keeps it longer in the vessel, until the whole turns sour and spoils the vessel. Therefore it is much better for us not to be angry with anyone even justly, than, by being angry as though justly, to slip through the hidden ease of anger into hatred of someone. In receiving unknown guests we are accustomed to say that it is much better to put up with a bad man than perhaps through ignorance to shut out a good one, while we take care that a bad one is not received. But in the affections of the soul it is the opposite. For it is incomparably more wholesome not to open the inner chamber of the heart to anger even when it knocks justly, than to admit what will not easily depart and will grow from a twig to a beam. For it dares shamelessly to grow even faster than one thinks; it does not blush in the darkness when the sun has gone down upon it. You surely remember with what care and how much anxiety I have written these things, if you remember what you said to me lately on a certain journey.

We greet brother Severus and those who are with him. We would perhaps write to them too, if the haste of the bearer allowed. I ask you to help me by your request to that same brother of ours, Victor, to whom, in the presence of Your Holiness also, I give thanks for letting me know when he was setting out for Constantina, that he not be unwilling to return by way of Calama, because of the business which he knows about, in which I bear a very heavy burden from the elder Nectarius, who is pressing me hard in the matter; for so he promised me. Farewell.