1

Both these were most probably only tokens of mourning, as a man generally took this vow when about to undertake a long journey, and abfent himself for a time from his native country.

tion.

The praise bestowed by our author on religious fafting belongs alfo to the monkish system of morality, notwithstanding there are many amongst the proteftants, who confider it as an exercife of devoAs I have much to fay against this, let me first observe, that I speak not of fuch temperance and fobriety as tends moft effectually to remove diforders of the body, induced by an improvident and immoderate indulgence in eating and drinking, and are thus neceffary to give our minds the freedom and activity requifite to the due exercise of prayer, meditation, and other acts of devotion. As far as fafting, or rather moderation in diet, is conducive to these purposes, it deferves to be ftrongly recommended. But fafting has no merit as an act of devotion, confidered by itself, or as an action immediatel acceptable to God. Can that being who is all benevolence and love take pleasure in a man's voluntarily chaftening his body, without his command, and thinking to honour his Creator by punishing himself? Can it be acceptable to God for man thus to endeavour to do more than he is commanded, and thence to take merit to himself? The notion of an intrinfic and immediate excellence in religious fafting, is altogether grounded on fuch unjust and unworthy ideas of God, that it is fcarcely worth while to fay any thing farther against it. They who through ignorance and prejudice fancy themfelves honouring God by punishing their bodies, can at moft expect only forgivenefs, but their fafts can by no means be confidered as truly good works. If, however, fafting be only valued as an immediate inftrument of promoting inward devotion, exciting and ftrengthening piety, and fortifying virtue, in particular chastity,

as

as it appears to be by our author, it is an abfolute duty to those who are fenfible of these advantages of it, as far as is actually fubfervient to those purposes but to this no ftrict fafting is requifite, or an abstinence from all food for a whole day. Such fasting, far from promoting its defigned ends, would in many respects be highly detrimental to them. Strict and frequent fafting is prejudicial to health, and in confequence of it fuch unpleasant fenfations commonly arise at our ftated periods of eating as render us unfit for any thing, efpecially for acts of devotion. To weaken the defires of youth by fafting requires fuch an extraordinary degree of it, as would tend greatly to injure health. The body must be confiderably exhaufted and weakened by the deprivation of nutritious juices. If this be not done, fafting, employed for this purpose, may produce directly oppofite effects. For the purpose being fixed in our minds, our whole attention would be turned to it; and experience teaches us how lively this attention is capable of rendering certain ideas, even when we call in all our mental faculties to fupprefs them. Long fafting, practised for a course of years, may alfo imperceptibly and gradually weaken us, and occafion a wasting of the body, whence we may grow old before our time, and bring upon ourselves a premature death.

Let us, however, inquire what the fcriptures fay of fafting. The ordinances of religion enjoined the Ifraelites in the Old Teftament were very ftrict: yet we find, that they had but one faft day appointed them in the whole year. This was the great day of atonement, on which they were to mourn, and appear as finners. Were fafting fuch a neceffary act of religion as it is deemed by fome, it would in all probability have been oftener prescribed the Jews: for one day in the year is almoft equivalent to none. The other holydays and fabbaths of that people were,

T t 4

as

as is well known, days of feafting and joy. In later times, the Ifraelites, willing to do more in respect to fafting than God had commanded them, eftablished other fast days. But on this head God declared by his prophet Ifaiah, chap. lviii. 6, 7. that the fafts acceptable to him were when a man reduced himself to want by the restoration of goods unrighteously obtained, or when he abated fomewhat of his ufual proportion of food to affift those who were more poor and neceffitous than himfelf, and to prevent the hungry and needy from perifhing. Here no fafts are fpoken of for which particular days were fet apart, but fuch as a benevolent and compaffionate man would exercife whenever he faw another oppreffed by want. In the New Teftament we find a remarkable obfervation of Chrift on fafting, Matt. ix. 14. whence it appears, that the Pharifees, and the difciples of John fafted, but the difciples of Jefus fafted not. Christ said, that his difciples were to be confidered as children of the bride chamber whilft he was with them, and confequently, that their fafting then would be as improper as fafting at the celebration of a nuptial ceremony: but, as fafting was a mark of forrow and mourning, they would faft, when he was taken from them, and they mourned his absence. The meaning of his words is; when a man is forrowful, and cannot eat for grief he may fast ; but if he have not this reafon for fafting, it is unneceffary for him thus to chaften himfelf. Inftances of exemplary perfons who have fafted have been adduced from the Acts of the Apostles, xiii. 2. I Cor. vii. 7. as proofs, of the neceffity of religious fafting. But it is not our duty to faft because Paul fafted; for Paul performed many other acts of devotion which it is not incumbent on us to imitate. Thus he took the Nazarites' vow, and permitted Timothy to be circumcifed. Both these he did in compliance with the cuftoms of the Jews, and

was

was juftified by the particular circumftances in which he flood. To us, however, the whole of the Levitical law is annulled, and were we to do what Paul did in circumstances totally different, we should not be equally excufable. Befides, he fays exprefsly, I Cor. vii. 6. that he gives not a commandment, but a permiffion. Chrift himself has no where prefcribed fafting. In a paffage often cited, 1 Cor. ix. 25, 27. fafting properly fo called is not spoken of, but merely an abftinence from certain meats, the indulging in which was deemed finful, to avoid giving offence to the weaker brethren.

I admit, however, that there are a few obfcure paffages in the New Teftament, which may be adduced in favour of the propriety, if not of the neceffity of religious fafting. Of these are the words of Chrift, Matt. xvii. 21. "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fafting:" fpoken of the cafting a devil out of a lunatic youth. The difciples of our Lord had been unable to caft him out, and on their afking Jefus the reafon of this, he affigns the want of faith as the general caufe, but also adds, that devils of this kind were not to be caft out but by fafting and prayer. Jefus, however, caft out this devil without prayer or fafting, but merely by rebuking him thus fafting and prayer were neceffary only for his difciples, probably as being neceffary to excite and fortify that faith which was neceffary to the performance of that miracle. The whole paffage, however, is very obscure, and I know of no commentator who has hitherto explained it fufficiently. Still thus much is clear, that, at moft, fafting is here recommended as a mean to effect a miracle, and produce a faith capable of working it, and confequently cannot be required of those who have no power to work miracles. When Chrift, and the apostle Paul, occafionally give fome rules for the obfervance of fafts, and how they might be better performed

performed than was commonly done, we may prefume that these religious ceremonies, like others then practifed by the people amongst whom they were, and which were not pofitively to be rejected, were rather permitted than enjoined, and that what is faid relates only to fome open abuses of them.

The monachal and afcetic opinion of our author respecting celibacy ftill deferves to be examined. He feems to conjecture, that whilft man remained in paradife in a state of innocence, the human race was propagated in a manner different from what it now is. This conjecture, however, which was entertained by the convulfionaries, and other fanatics, has no foundation in the nature or frame of man, or in the Mofaic account of his origin. Mofes relates the appointment of marriage, the increase of the human fpecies to be effected by it, and the bleffing given by God to the first pair, before he mentions the fall of man. But this fall, however important and extenfive we may suppose its confequences to have been, could not have occafioned fuch an alteration in the effential frame of man, as to produce in him parts which he had not previous to it, or to change the functions of those which he had. Before man had expofed himself to moral depravity, his natural inclinations, no doubt, were more moderate, more obedient to reason, and more fubfervient to the ends for which they were implanted: but it is not credible, that they were altogether wanting, and that the innocent pleasure attending a due fatisfaction of them was denied; neither have we the leaft foundation for fuch a fuppofition. Analogy, from the confideration of animals in nature refembling man, teaches us the contrary. Thefe, which never fell, would unqueftionably have been propagated in the paradifiacal ftate as well as in the prefent. The immortality poffeffed by man in a ftate of innocence could no more render the propagation of the fpecies unnecef

fary,