Letter XXXVI.

(a.d. 396.)

To My Brother and Fellow-Presbyter Casulanus, Most Beloved and Longed For, Augustin Sends Greeting in the Lord.

Chap. I.

1. I know not how it was that I did not reply to your first letter; but I know that my neglect was not owing to want of esteem for you. For I take pleasure in your studies, and even in the words in which you express your thoughts; and it is my desire as well as advice that you make great attainments in your early years in the word of God, for the edification of the Church. Having now received a second letter from you, in which you plead for an answer on the most just and amiable ground of that brotherly love in which we are one, I have resolved no longer to postpone the gratification of the desire expressed by your love; and although in the midst of most engrossing business, I address myself to discharge the debt due to you.

2. As to the question on which you wish my opinion, “whether it is lawful to fast on the seventh day of the week,”133    Sabbato. I answer, that if it were wholly unlawful, neither Moses nor Elijah, nor our Lord Himself, would have fasted for forty successive days. But by the same argument it is proved that even on the Lord’s day fasting is not unlawful. And yet, if any one were to think that the Lord’s day should be appointed a day of fasting, in the same way as the seventh day is observed by some, such a man would be regarded, and not unjustly, as bringing a great cause of offence into the Church. For in those things concerning which the divine Scriptures have laid down no definite rule, the custom of the people of God, or the practices instituted by their fathers, are to be held as the law of the Church.134    We give the ipsissima verba of this canon: “In his enim rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina mos populi Dei vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt.” If we choose to fall into a debate about these things, and to denounce one party merely because their custom differs from that of others, the consequence must be an endless contention, in which the utmost care is necessary lest the storm of conflict overcast with clouds the calmness of brotherly love, while strength is spent in mere controversy which cannot adduce on either side any decisive testimonies of truth. This danger the author has not been careful to avoid, whose prolix dissertation you deemed worth sending to me with your former letter, that I might answer his arguments.

Chap. II.

3. I have not at my disposal sufficient leisure to enter on the refutation of his opinions one by one: my time is demanded by other and more important work. But if you devote a little more carefully to this treatise of an anonymous Roman author,135    In the text the name is Urbicus, from Urbs Roma. the talents which by your letters you prove yourself to possess, and which I greatly love in you as God’s gift, you will see that he has not hesitated to wound by his most injurious language almost the whole Church of Christ, from the rising of the sun to its going down. Nay, I may say not almost, but absolutely, the whole Church. For he is found to have not even spared the Roman Christians, whose custom he seems to himself to defend; but he is not aware how the force of his invectives recoils upon them, for it has escaped his observation. For when arguments to prove the obligation to fast on the seventh day of the week fail him, he enters on a vehement blustering protest against the excesses of banquets and drunken revelries, and the worst licence of intoxication, as if there were no medium between fasting and rioting. Now if this be admitted, what good can fasting on Saturday do to the Romans? since on the other days on which they do not fast they must be presumed, according to his reasoning, to be gluttonous, and given to excess in wine. If, therefore, there is any difference between loading the heart with surfeiting and drunkenness, which is always sinful, and relaxing the strictness of fasting, with due regard to self-restraint and temperance on the other, which is done on the Lord’s day without censure from any Christian,—if, I say, there is a difference between these two things, let him first mark the distinction between the repasts of saints and the excessive eating and drinking of those whose god is their belly, lest he charge the Romans themselves with belonging to the latter class on the days on which they do not fast; and then let him inquire, not whether it is lawful to indulge in drunkenness on the seventh day of the week, which is not lawful on the Lord’s day, but whether it is incumbent on us to fast on the seventh day of the week, which we are not wont to do on the Lord’s day.

4. This question I would wish to see him investigate, and resolve in such a manner as would not involve him in the guilt of openly speaking against the whole Church diffused throughout the world, with the exception of the Roman Christians, and hitherto a few of the Western communities. Is it, I ask, to be endured among the entire Eastern Christian communities, and many of those in the West, that this man should say of so many and so eminent servants of Christ, who on the seventh day of the week refresh themselves soberly and moderately with food, that they “are in the flesh, and cannot please God;” and that of them it is written, “Let the wicked depart from me, I will not know their way;” and that they make their belly their god, that they prefer Jewish rites to those of the Church, and are sons of the bondwoman; that they are governed not by the righteous law of God, but by their own good pleasure, consulting their own appetites instead of submitting to salutary restraint; also that they are carnal, and savour of death, and other such charges, which if he had uttered against even one servant of God, who would listen to him, who would not be bound to turn away from him? But now, when he assails with such reproachful and abusive language the Church bearing fruit and increasing throughout the whole world, and in almost all places observing no fast on the seventh day of the week, I warn him, whoever he is, to beware. For in wishing to conceal from me his name, you plainly showed your unwillingness that I should judge him.

Chap. III.

5. “The Son of man,” he says, “is Lord of the Sabbath, and in that day it is by all means lawful to do good rather than do evil.”136    Matt. xii. 8–12. If, therefore, we do evil when we break our fast, there is no Lord’s day upon which we live as we should. As to his admission that the apostles did eat upon the seventh day of the week, and his remark upon this, that the time for their fasting had not then come, because of the Lord’s own words, “The days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall the children of the Bridegroom fast;”137    Matt. ix. 15. since there is “a time to rejoice, and a time to mourn,”138    Eccles. iii. 4. he ought first to have observed, that our Lord was speaking there of fasting in general, but not of fasting upon the seventh day. Again, when he says that by fasting grief is signified, and that by food joy is represented, why does he not reflect what it was which God designed to signify by that which is written, “that He rested on the seventh day from all His works,”—namely, that joy, and not sorrow, was set forth in that rest? Unless, perchance, he intends to affirm that in God’s resting and hallowing of the Sabbath, joy was signified to the Jews, but grief to the Christians. But God did not lay down a rule concerning fasting or eating on the seventh day of the week, either at the time of His hallowing that day because in it He rested from His works, or afterwards, when He gave precepts to the Hebrew nation concerning the observance of that day. The only thing enjoined on man there is, that he abstain from doing work himself, or requiring it from his servants. And the people of the former dispensation, accepting this rest as a shadow of things to come, obeyed the command by such abstinence from work as we now see practised by the Jews; not, as some suppose, through their being carnal, and misunderstanding what the Christians rightly understand. Nor do we understand this law better than the prophets, who, at the time when this was still binding, observed such rest on the Sabbath as the Jews believe ought to be observed to this day. Hence also it was that God commanded them to stone to death a man who had gathered sticks on the Sabbath;139    Num. xv. 35. but we nowhere read of any one being stoned, or deemed worthy of any punishment whatever, for either fasting or eating on the Sabbath. Which of the two is more in keeping with rest, and which with toil, let our author himself decide, who has regarded joy as the portion of those who eat, and sorrow as the portion of those who fast, or at least has understood that these things were so regarded by the Lord, when, giving answer concerning fasting, He said: “Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the Bridegroom is with them?”140    Matt. ix. 15.

6. Moreover, as to his assertion, that the reason of the apostles eating on the seventh day (a thing forbidden by the tradition of the elders) was, that the time for their fasting on that day had not come; I ask, if the time had not then come for the abolition of the Jewish rest from work on that day? Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand, and enjoin rest on the other? and.yet the disciples of Christ, of whom we read that they did eat on the Sabbath, did on the same day pluck the ears of corn, which was not then lawful, because forbidden by the tradition of the elders. Let him therefore consider whether it might not with more reason be said in reply to him, that the Lord desired to have these two things, the plucking of the ears of corn and the taking of food, done in the same day by His disciples, for this reason, that the former action might confute those who would prohibit all work on the seventh day, and the latter action confute those who would enjoin fasting on the seventh day; since by the former action He taught that the rest from labour was now, through the change in the dispensation, an act of superstition; and by the latter He intimated His will, that under both dispensations the matter of fasting or not was left to every man’s choice. I do not say this by way of argument in support of my view, but only to show how, in answer to him, things much more forcible than what he has spoken might be advanced.

Chap. IV.

7. “How shall we,” says our author, “escape sharing the condemnation of the Pharisee, if we fast twice in the week?”141    Luke xviii. 11, 12. As if the Pharisee had been condemned for fasting twice in the week, and not for proudly vaunting himself above the publican. He might as well say that those also are condemned with that Pharisee, who give a tenth of all their possessions to the poor, for he boasted of this among his other works; whereas I would that it were done by many Christians, instead of a very small number, as we find. Or let him say, that whosoever is not an unjust man, or adulterer, or extortioner, must be condemned with that Pharisee, because he boasted that he was none of these; but the man who could think thus is, beyond question, beside himself. Moreover, if these things which the Pharisee mentioned as found in him, being admitted by all to be good in themselves, are not to be retained with the haughty boastfulness which was manifest in him, but are to be retained with the lowly piety which was not in him; by the same rule, to fast twice in the week is in a man such as the Pharisee unprofitable, but is in one who has humility and faith a religious service. Moreover, after all, the Scripture does not say that the Pharisee was condemned, but only that the publican was “justified rather than the other.”

8. Again, when our author insists upon interpreting, in connection with this matter, the words of the Lord, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,”142    Matt. v. 21. and thinks that we cannot fulfil this precept unless we fast oftener than twice in the week, let him mark well that there are seven days in the week. If, then, from these any one subtract two, not fasting on the seventh day nor on the Lord’s day, there remain five days in which he may surpass the Pharisee, who fasts but twice in the week. For I think that if any man fast three times in the week, he already surpasses the Pharisee who fasted but twice. And if a fast is observed four times, or even so often as five times, passing over only the seventh day and the Lord’s day without fasting,—a practice observed by many through their whole lifetime, especially by those who are settled in monasteries,—by this not the Pharisee alone is surpassed in the labour of fasting, but that Christian also whose custom is to fast on the fourth, and sixth, and seventh days, as the Roman community does to a large extent. And yet your nameless metropolitan disputant calls such an one carnal, even though for five successive days of the week, excepting the seventh and the Lord’s day, he so fast as to withhold all refection from the body; as if, forsooth, food and drink on other days had nothing to do with the flesh, and condemns him as making a god of his belly, as if it was only the seventh day’s repast which entered into the belly.

            .            .            .            .            .            .            .            .            .            .

We have no compunction in passing over about eight columns here of this letter, in which Augustin exposes, with a tedious minuteness and with a waste of rhetoric, other feeble and irrelevant puerilities of the Roman author whose work Casulanus had submitted to his review. Instead of accompanying him into the shallow places into which he was drawn while pursuing such an insignificant foe, let us resume the translation at the point at which Augustin gives his own opinion regarding the question whether it is binding on Christians to fast on Saturday.

Chap. XI.

25. As to the succeeding paragraphs with which he concludes his treatise, they are, like some other things in it which I have not thought worthy of notice, even more irrelevant to a discussion of the question whether we should fast or eat on the seventh day of the week. But I leave it to yourself, especially if you have found any help from what I have already said, to observe and dispose of these. Having now to the best of my ability, and as I think sufficiently, replied to the reasonings of this author, if I be asked what is my own opinion in this matter, I answer, after carefully pondering the question, that in the Gospels and Epistles, and the entire collection of books for our instruction called the New Testament, I see that fasting is enjoined. But I do not discover any rule definitely laid down by the Lord or by the apostles as to days on which we ought or ought not to fast. And by this I am persuaded that exemption from fasting on the seventh day is more suitable, not indeed to obtain, but to foreshadow, that eternal rest in which the true Sabbath is realized, and which is obtained only by faith, and by that righteousness whereby the daughter of the King is all glorious within.

26. In this question, however, of fasting or not fasting on the seventh day, nothing appears to me more safe and conducive to peace than the apostle’s rule: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth:”143    Rom. xiv. 3. “for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse;”144    1 Cor. viii. 8. our fellowship with those among whom we live, and along with whom we live in God, being preserved undisturbed by these things. For as it is true that, in the words of the apostles, “it is evil for that man who eateth with offence,”145    Rom. xiv. 20. it is equally true that it is evil for that man who fasteth with offence. Let us not therefore be like those who, seeing John the Baptist neither eating nor drinking, said, “He hath a devil;” but let us equally avoid imitating those who said, when they saw Christ eating and drinking, “Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.”146    Matt. xi. 19. After mentioning these sayings, the Lord subjoined a most important truth in the words, “But Wisdom is justified of her children;” and if you ask who these are, read what is written, “The sons of Wisdom are the congregation of the righteous:”147    Ecclus. iii. 1. they are they who, when they eat, do not despise others who do not eat; and when they eat not, do not judge those who eat, but who do despise and judge those who, with offence, either eat or abstain from eating.

Chap. XII.

27. As to the seventh day of the week there is less difficulty in acting on the rule above quoted, because both the Roman Church and some other churches, though few, near to it or remote from it, observe a fast on that day; but to fast on the Lord’s day is a great offence, especially since the rise of that detestable heresy of the Manichæans, so manifestly and grievously contradicting the Catholic faith and the divine Scriptures: for the Manichæans have prescribed to their followers the obligation of fasting upon that day; whence it has resulted that the fast upon the Lord’s day is regarded with the greater abhorrence. Unless, perchance, some one be able to continue an unbroken fast for more than a week, so as to approach as nearly as may be to the fast of forty days, as we have known some do; and we have even been assured by brethren most worthy of credit, that one person did attain to the full period of forty days. For as, in the time of the Old Testament fathers, Moses and Elijah did not do anything against liberty of eating on the seventh day of the week, when they fasted forty days; so the man who has been able to go beyond seven days in fasting has not chosen the Lord’s day as a day of fasting, but has only come upon it in course among the days for which, so far as he might be able, he had vowed to prolong his fast. If, however, a continuous fast is to be concluded within a week, there is no day upon which it may more suitably be concluded than the Lord’s day; but if the body is not refreshed until more than a week has elapsed, the Lord’s day is not in that case selected as a day of fasting, but is found occurring within the number of days for which it had seemed good to the person to make a vow.

28. Be not moved by that which the Priscillianists148    Priscillian, Bishop of Avila in Spain, adopted Gnostic and Manichæan errors and practices. He was condemned by the Synod of Saragossa in 381 A.D., and beheaded, along with his principal followers, by order of Maximus in 385 A.D. (a sect very like the Manichæans) are wont to quote as an argument from the Acts of the Apostles, concerning what was done by the Apostle Paul in Troas. The passage is as follows: “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”149    Acts xx. 7. Afterwards, when he had come down from the supper chamber where they had been gathered together, that he might restore the young man who, overpowered with sleep, had fallen from the window and was taken up dead, the Scripture states further concerning the apostle: “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.”150    Acts xx. 11. Far be it from us to accept this as affirming that the apostles were accustomed to fast habitually on the Lord’s day. For the day now known as the Lord’s day was then called the first day of the week, as is more plainly seen in the Gospels; for the day of the Lord’s resurrection is called by Matthew μία σαββάτων, and by the other three evangelists ἡ μία (τῶν) σαββάτων,151    “Prima Sabbati a Matthæo, a cætetis autem tribus una Sabbati dicitur.” Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1. and it is well ascertained that the same is the day which is now called the Lord’s day. Either, therefore, it was after the close of the seventh day that they had assembled,—namely, in the beginning of the night which followed, and which belonged to the Lord’s day, or the first day of the week,—and in this case the apostle, before proceeding to break bread with them, as is done in the sacrament of the body of Christ, continued his discourse until midnight, and also, after celebrating the sacrament, continued still speaking again to those who were assembled, being much pressed for time in order that he might set out at dawn upon the Lord’s day; or if it was on the first day of the week, at an hour before sunset on the Lord’s day, that they had assembled, the words of the text, “Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow,” themselves expressly state the reason for his prolonging his discourse,—namely, that he was about to leave them, and wished to give them ample instruction. The passage does not therefore prove that they habitually fasted on the Lord’s day, but only that it did not seem meet to the apostle to interrupt, for the sake of taking refreshment, an important discourse, which was listened to with the ardour of most lively interest by persons whom he was about to leave, and whom, on account of his many other journeyings, he visited but seldom, and perhaps on no other occasion than this, especially because, as subsequent events prove, he was then leaving them without expectation of seeing them again in this life. Nay, by this instance, it is rather proved that such fasting on the Lord’s day was not customary, because the writer of the history, in order to prevent this being thought, has taken care to state the reason why the discourse was so prolonged, that we might know that in an emergency dinner is not to stand in the way of more important work. But indeed the example of these most eager listeners goes further; for by them all bodily refreshment, not dinner only, but supper also, was disregarded when thirsting vehemently, not for water, but for the word of truth; and considering that the fountain was about to be removed from them, they drank in with unabated desire whatever flowed from the apostle’s lips.

29. In that age, however, although fasting upon the Lord’s day was not usually practised, it was not so great an offence to the Church when, in any similar emergency to that in which Paul was at Troas, men did not attend to the refreshment of the body throughout the whole of the Lord’s day until midnight, or even until the dawn of the following morning. But now, since heretics, and especially these most impious Manichæans, have begun not to observe an occasional fast upon the Lord’s day, when constrained by circumstances, but to prescribe such fasting as a duty binding by sacred and solemn institution, and this practice of theirs has become well known to Christian communities; even were such an emergency arising as that which the apostle experienced, I verily think that what he then did should not now be done, lest the harm done by the offence given should be greater than the good received from the words spoken. Whatever necessity may arise, or good reason, compelling a Christian to fast on the Lord’s day,—as we find, e.g., in the Acts of the Apostles, that in peril of shipwreck they fasted on board of the ship in which the apostle was for fourteen days successively, within which the Lord’s day came round twice,152    Acts xxvii. 33.—we ought to have no hesitation in believing that the Lord’s day is not to be placed among the days of voluntary fasting, except in the case of one vowing to fast continuously for a period longer than a week.

Chap. XIII.

30. The reason why the Church prefers to appoint the fourth and sixth days of the week for fasting, is found by considering the gospel narrative. There we find that on the fourth day of the week153    Commonly called quarta feria. the Jews took counsel to put the Lord to death. One day having intervened,—on the evening of which, at the close, namely, of the day which we call the fifth day of the week, the Lord ate the passover with His disciples,—He was thereafter betrayed on the night which belonged to the sixth day of the week, the day (as is everywhere known) of His passion. This day, beginning with the evening, was the first day of unleavened bread. The evangelist Matthew, however, says that the fifth day of the week was the first of unleavened bread, because in the evening following it the paschal supper was to be observed, at which they began to eat the unleavened bread, and the lamb offered in sacrifice. From which it is inferred that it was upon the fourth day of the week that the Lord said, “You know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified;”154    Matt. xxvi. 2. and for this reason that day has been regarded as one suitable for fasting, because, as the evangelist immediately adds: “Then assembled together the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who is called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him.”155    Matt. xxvi. 3, 4. After the intermission of one day,—the day, namely, of which the evangelist writes:156    Matt. xxvi. 17. “Now, on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover? “—the Lord suffered on the sixth day of the week, as is admitted by all: wherefore the sixth day also is rightly reckoned a day for fasting, as fasting is symbolical of humiliation; whence it is said, “I humbled my soul with fasting.”157    Ps. xxxv. 13.

31. The next day is the Jewish Sabbath, on which day Christ’s body rested in the grave, as in the original fashioning of the world God rested on that day from all His works. Hence originated that variety in the robe of His bride158    Ps. xlv. 13, 14. which we are now considering: some, especially the Eastern communities, preferring to take food on that day, that their action might be emblematic of the divine rest; others, namely the Church of Rome, and some churches in the West, preferring to fast on that day because of the humiliation of the Lord in death. Once in the year, namely at Easter, all Christians observe the seventh day of the week by fasting, in memory of the mourning with which the disciples, as men bereaved, lamented the death of the Lord (and this is done with the utmost devoutness by those who take food on the seventh day throughout the rest of the year); thus providing a symbolical representation of both events,—of the disciples’ sorrow on one seventh day in the year, and of the blessing of repose on all the others. There are two things which make the happiness of the just and the end of all their misery to be confidently expected, viz. death and the resurrection of the dead. In death is that rest of which the prophet speaks: “Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.”159    Isa. xxvi. 20. In resurrection blessedness is consummated in the whole man, both body and soul. Hence it came to be thought that both of these things [death and resurrection] should be symbolized, not by the hardship of fasting, but rather by the cheerfulness of refreshment with food, excepting only the Easter Saturday, on which, as I have said, it had been resolved to commemorate by a more protracted fast the mourning of the disciples, as one of the events to be had in remembrance.

Chap. XIV.

32. Since, therefore (as I have said above), we do not find in the Gospels or in the apostolical writings, belonging properly to the revelation of the New Testament, that any law was laid down as to fasts to be observed on particular days; and since this is consequently one of many things, difficult to enumerate, which make up a variety in the robe of the King’s daughter,160    Ps. xlv. 13. that is to say, of the Church,—I will tell you the answer given to my questions on this subject by the venerable Ambrose Bishop of Milan, by whom I was baptized. When my mother was with me in that city, I, as being only a catechumen, felt no concern about these questions; but it was to her a question causing anxiety, whether she ought, after the custom of our own town, to fast on the Saturday, or, after the custom of the Church of Milan, not to fast. To deliver her from perplexity, I put the question to the man of God whom I have just named. He answered, “What else can I recommend to others than what I do myself?” When I thought that by this he intended simply to prescribe to us that we should take food on Saturdays—for I knew this to be his own practice—he, following me, added these words: “When I am here I do not fast on Saturday; but when I am at Rome I do: whatever church you may come to, conform to its custom, if you would avoid either receiving or giving offence.” This reply I reported to my mother, and it satisfied her, so that she scrupled not to comply with it; and I have myself followed the same rule. Since, however, it happens, especially in Africa, that one church, or the churches within the same district, may have some members who fast and others who do not fast on the seventh day, it seems to me best to adopt in each congregation the custom of those to whom authority in its government has been committed. Wherefore, if you are quite willing to follow my advice, especially because in regard to this matter I have spoken at greater length than was necessary, do not in this resist your own bishop, but follow his practice without scruple or debate.

EPISTOLA XXXVI . Augustinus Casulano presbytero, refellens Urbici, id est cujusdam e Romana urbe, dissertationem pro sabbati jejunio, scriptam perquam imperitissime.

Dilectissimo et desiderantissimo fratri et compresbytero CASULANO, AUGUSTINUS, in Domino salutem.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

1. Nescio unde sit factum, ut primis tuis litteris meas non redderem: non tamen contemptu id me fecisse scio. Nam et studiis tuis et ipso sermone delector, teque in ista aetate juvenili proficere in verbo Dei et abundare ad aedificationem Ecclesiae, et opto et exhortor. Nunc vero scriptis tuis alteris sumptis, quibus tibi tandem aliquando responderi jure charitatis, in qua unum sumus, fraterno et aequissimo flagitas, differendum tuae dilectionis ulterius desiderium non putavi, et inter arctissimas occupationes meas suscepi isto me debito apud te absolvere .

2. Quod ergo me consulis, utrum liceat sabbato jejunare: respondeo, si nullo modo liceret, profecto quadraginta continuos dies nec Moyses, nec Elias, nec ipse Dominus jejunasset. Verum ista ratione concluditur, etiam dominico die non illicitum esse jejunium. Et quisquis tamen hunc diem jejunio decernendum putaverit, sicut quidam jejunantes sabbatum observant, non parvo scandalo erit Ecclesiae, nec immerito. In his enim rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt. De quibus si disputare 0137 voluerimus, et ex aliorum consuetudine alios improbare, orietur interminata luctatio, quae labore sermocinationis cum certa documenta nulla veritatis insinuet, utique cavendum est, ne tempestate contentionis serenitatem charitatis obnubilet. Quod periculum vitare neglexit, cujus mihi prolixam disputationem, ut ei responderem, cum tuis prioribus litteris existimasti esse mittendam.

CAPUT II.

3. Non autem usque adeo mihi spatia temporum larga sunt, ut ea refellendis singulis sententiis ejus impendam, quae aliis operibus magis urgentibus explicandis habeo necessaria. Sed eo quo te mihi in tuis epistolis ostendis ingenio, quod in te donum Dei admodum diligo, eumdem sermonem cujusdam, ut scribis, Urbici , paulo diligentius ipse considera, et videbis eum pene universam Ecclesiam Christi, ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, verbis injuriosissimis nequaquam lacerare timuisse. Nec dixerim pene universam, sed plane universam. Nam neque ipsis, quorum consuetudinem sibi videtur defendere, invenitur pepercisse Romanis; sed quomodo in eos quoque redundet conviciorum ejus impetus nescit, quoniam non advertit. Nam cum ei argumenta deficiunt, quibus probet sabbato jejunandum, in luxurias epularum et temulenta convivia et nequissimas ebrietates insultabundus invehitur, quasi non jejunare, hoc sit inebriari. Quod si hoc est, quid ergo prodest Romanis sabbato jejunare? quandoquidem aliis diebus quibus non jejunant, necesse est eos, secundum disputationem hujus, ebriosos et ventricolas judicari. Porro, si aliud est gravare corda in crapula et ebrietate, quod semper est malum, aliud est autem modestia et temperantia custodita relaxare jejunium, quod certe cum fit die dominico, reprehensorem non habet christianum; prandia prius sanctorum a voracitate et ebriositate ventricolarum iste discernat, ne Romanos ipsos quando non jejunant ventricolas faciat, et tunc inquirat, non utrum liceat inebriari sabbato, quod nec die dominico licet; sed utrum nec sabbato jejunandum sit, sicut dominico non solet.

4. Quod utinam sic quaereret, aut sic affirmaret, ut toto terrarum orbe diffusam, exceptis Romanis et adhuc paucis Occidentalibus, apertissime non blasphemaret Ecclesiam. Nunc vero quis ferat per omnes orientales, et multos etiam occidentales populos christianos de tot tantisque famulis famulabusque Christi, sabbato sobrie modesteque prandentibus, ab isto dici quod in carne sint, et Deo placere non possint, et quod de illis sit scriptum, Recedant iniqui a me, viam eorum nosse nolo; et quod sint ventricolae, Judaeam Ecclesiae praeponentes, et ancillae filios; et lege non justa, sed voluptaria, consulentes ventri, non disciplinae succumbentes; et quod caro sint, et mortem sapiant, et caetera hujusmodi: quae si de uno 0138 quopiam Dei famulo diceret, quis eum audire, quis non devitare deberet? Cum vero his opprobriis atque maledictis insectatur Ecclesiam per totum mundum fructificantem atque crescentem et die sabbati pene ubique prandentem, admoneo quisquis est, ut sese cohibeat. Nam cujus me nomen ignorare voluisti, profecto de illo me judicare noluisti.

CAPUT III.

5. Filius hominis, inquit, sabbati Dominus est: in quo maxime, bene, quam male facere licet (Matth. XII, 8-12). Si ergo male facimus, quando prandemus; nullo die dominico bene vivimus. Quod autem fatetur Apostolus sabbato manducasse, et dicit, ut tunc jejunaretur temporis non fuisse, propter quod ait Dominus, Venient dies ut auferatur sponsus ab eis, et tunc jejunabunt filii sponsi (Id. IX, 15), quia tempus gaudii, et tempus est luctus (Eccle. III, 4), primum attendere debuit, quod illic Dominus de jejunio, non de sabbati jejunio loquebatur. Deinde cum vult intelligi luctum jejunio, cibo gaudium deputandum, cur non cogitat, quidquid est illud quod significare Deus voluit in eo quod scriptum est, eum die septimo requievisse ab omnibus operibus suis (Gen. II, 2), non ibi luctum significatum fuisse, sed gaudium? Nisi forte dicturus est, in illa requie Dei et sanctificatione sabbati gaudium Judaeis, luctum significatum esse Christianis. Et tamen nec quando sanctificavit Deus diem septimum, quia in illo requievit ab omnibus operibus suis, aliquid de jejunio vel prandio sabbati expressit; nec cum postea populo Hebraeo de ipsius diei observatione mandavit, aliquid de alimentis vel sumendis vel non sumendis locutus est. Vacatio tantum homini a suis, vel a servilibus operibus imperatur: quam prior populus in umbra accipiens futurorum, sic vacavit ab operibus, quemadmodum nunc Judaeos vacare conspicimus; non, ut putatur, Judaeis carnalibus non recte intelligentibus quod recte intelligunt Christiani. Neque enim melius hoc intelligimus quam Prophetae, qui tamen eo tempore, quo ita fieri oportuit, servaverunt hanc sabbati vacationem, quam Judaei putant adhuc esse servandam. Unde illud est, quod lapidare Deus hominem jussit, qui sabbato ligna collegerat (Num. XV, 35); nusquam autem legimus lapidatum, vel aliquo dignum supplicio judicatum, sive jejunantem sabbato, sive prandentem. Quid tamen horum duorum quieti conveniat, quid labori, iste ipse viderit, qui gaudium manducantibus, luctum jejunantibus deputavit, vel a Domino deputari intellexit, ubi de jejunio respondens ait: Non possunt lugere filii sponsi, quamdiu cum eis est sponsus (Matth. IX, 15).

6. Quod autem propterea dicit sabbato Apostolos manducasse, quia nondum erat tempus ut sabbato jejunarent; quod scilicet veterum traditio prohibebat: numquid ergo jam erat tempus ut sabbato non vacarent? Nonne et hoc traditio veterum prohibebat, et vacare cogebat? et tamen eo ipso sabbati die, quo Christi legimus manducasse discipulos, vulserunt utique spicas (Id. XII, 1); quod sabbato non licebat, quia veterum traditio prohibebat. Videat igitur ne 0139 forte congruentius ei respondeatur ideo Dominum die illo a discipulis haec duo fieri voluisse; unum de spicis vellendis, alterum de alimentis sumendis; ut illud esset adversus eos qui sabbato volunt vacare, hoc autem adversus eos qui cogunt sabbato jejunare: cum illud mutato tempore jam superstitiosum esse significasset, hoc autem utroque tempore liberum esse voluisset. Neque id confirmando dixerim, sed quid ei multo aptius, quam sunt ea quae loquitur, responderi possit ostenderim.

CAPUT IV.

7. Quomodo, inquit, non cum Pharisaeo damnabimur, bis in sabbato jejunantes? tanquam Pharisaeus ideo damnetur, quia bis in sabbato jejunabat, et non quia super Publicanum se tumidus extollebat (Luc. XVIII, 11, 12). Potest autem iste dicere etiam illos, qui omnium fructuum suorum decimas dant pauperibus, cum Pharisaeo damnari, quia hoc quoque ille inter sua opera praedicabat; quod cupimus a multis fieri christianis, et vix paucissimos invenimus: aut vero qui non fuerit injustus, adulter et raptor, cum Pharisaeo damnabitur; quia ille se talem non esse jactabat; quod certe quisquis sentit, insanit. Porro si haec sine dubio bona, quae sibi Pharisaeus inesse commemorabat, non habenda sunt cum superbiente jactantia quae in illo apparebat; sed tamen habenda sunt cum pietate humili quae in illo non erat: sic et bis in sabbato jejunare, in homine qualis fuerat ille Pharisaeus, infructuosum est; in homine autem humiliter fideli, vel fideliter humili, religiosum est: quamvis evangelica Scriptura non dixerit damnatum Pharisaeum, sed magis justificatum dixit Publicanum.

8. Verum si hoc modo putat iste intelligendum quod ait Dominus, Nisi abundaverit justitia vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabilis in regnum coelorum (Matth. V, 21), et nisi amplius quam bis in sabbato jejunemus, hoc praecepto non possimus implere; bene quod septem dies sunt qui volumine temporum per sua vestigia revocantur. Cum ergo ex his biduum quisque detraxerit, ne sabbato dominicoque jejunet, remanent dies quinque in quibus Pharisaeum superare possit bis in sabbato jejunantem. Puto enim quod si ter in sabbato quis jejunat, jam superat Pharisaeum, qui bis in sabbato jejunabat. Quod si et quater, vel etiam ut nullus dierum, excepto sabbato et dominico, praetermittatur, in hebdomade quinquies jejunetur, quod multi tota vita sua faciunt, maxime in monasteriis constituti; non solum Pharisaeus qui bis in sabbato jejunabat, verum etiam christianus qui quarta et sexta et ipso sabbato jejunare consuevit, quod frequenter Romana plebs facit, in labore jejunii superabitur: et tamen nescio quis iste, ut dicis, Urbicus disputator, etiamsi quis quinque continuis praeter sabbatum et dominicum diebus ita jejunet, ut nullo die omnino reficiat corpus, eum carnalem vocat, quasi cibus et potus caeteris diebus non pertineat ad carnem; 0140 et ventricolam judicat, quasi solius sabbati prandium descendat in ventrem.

CAPUT V.

9. Huic sane non sufficit quod ad vincendum Pharisaeum jam sufficit, ut ter in sabbato jejunetur; sed excepto dominico sex caeteris diebus ita jejunare compellit, ut dicat: Antiqua remota labe, duo in carne una, Christi jam sub disciplina manentes, non debent cum filiis sine lege et cum principibus Sodomorum, et cum plebe Gomorrhae sabbatorum voluptaria convivia exercere; sed cum sanctimoniae incolis ac Deo devotis solemni et ecclesiastico jure magis ac magis legitime jejunare, ut sex dierum vel levis error, jejunii, orationis et eleemosynae fontibus abluatur, quo possimus dominica alogia refecti omnes aequali corde digne cantare: Saturasti, Domine, animam inanem, et potasti animam sitientem. Ista dicens et a frequentia jejunandi solum diem dominicum excipiens, non tantum Orientis et Occidentis populos christianos, in quibus sabbato nemo jejunat; verum et ipsam Romanam Ecclesiam improvidus et incautus accusat. Cum enim dicit, sub disciplina Christi manentes, non debere cum filiis sine lege, cum principibus Sodomae, cum plebe Gomorrhae voluptaria sabbatorum exercere convivia, sed cum sanctimoniae incolis ac Deo devotis, solemni et ecclesiastico jure magis ac magis legitime jejunare; ac deinde definiens quid sit legitime jejunare, subjungit et dicit, ut sex dierum vel levis error, jejunii, orationis et eleemosynae fontibus abluatur: profecto eos qui minus quam sex diebus in hebdomade jejunant, non putat legitime exercere jejunium, nec Deo esse devotos, nec maculas erroris, quae de ista mortalitate contrahuntur, abluere. Videant ergo Romani quid agant, quia etiam ipsi nimium contumeliose hujus disputatione tractantur; apud quos omnibus istis sex diebus, praeter paucissimos clericos aut monachos, quotusquisque invenitur, qui frequentet quotidiana jejunia? maxime quia ibi jejunandum quinta sabbati non videtur.

10. Deinde quaero: si uniuscujusque diei vel levis error ipsius diei jejunio solvitur vel abluitur; sic enim dicit, ut sex dierum vel levis error, jejunii quoque fontibus abluatur; quid faciemus de illo errore qui subrepserit dominico die, in quo scandalum est jejunare? Aut si die ipso nullus Christianis error obrepit, videat homo iste qui ventricolas tanquam magnus jejunator accusat, quantum honoris et utilitatis ventribus tribuat, si tunc non erratur, quando prandetur. An forte in jejunio sabbati tantum bonum constituit, ut aliorum sex dierum, hoc est, ipsius etiam dominici vel levem, sicut dicit, errorem, solum jejunium sabbati possit abolere, et solo ipso die non erretur, quo toto utique jejunatur? Quid est ergo quod diem dominicum sabbato, velut christiano jure, praeponit? Ecce secundum ipsum dies sabbati multo sanctior invenitur, in quo et non erratur, cum ejus toto spatio jejunatur, et eodem jejunio sex caeterorum dierum, ac per hoc ipsius dominici error abluitur: puto quod tibi non placet ista praesumptio.

11. Jamvero cum se hominem spiritualem videri velit, et tanquam carnales, pransores sabbati accuset, 0141 attende quemadmodum dominici diei non parco prandio reficiatur, sed alogia delectetur. Quid est autem alogia, quod verbum ex graeca lingua usurpatum est, nisi cum epulis indulgetur, ut a rationis tramite devietur? Unde animalia ratione carentia dicuntur aloga, quibus similes sunt ventri dediti: propter quod, immoderatum convivium, quo mens, in qua ratio dominatur, ingurgitatione vescendi ac bibendi quodammodo obruitur, alogia nuncupatur. Insuper etiam propter cibum ac potum, non mentis, sed ventris alogia diei dominici dicit esse cantandum: Saturasti, Domine, animam inanem, et potasti animam sitientem. O virum spiritualem! o carnalium reprehensorem! o magnum jejunatorem, et non ventricultorem! Ecce qui nos admonet ne lege ventris legem Domini corrumpamus, ne panem coeli vendamus esca terrena, et adjungit: Quia esca Adam paradiso periit, esca Esau primatum amisit. Ecce qui dicit: Est enim Satanae usitata calumnia, tentatio ventris, qui modicum suadet ut auferat totum. Et horum, inquit, interpretatio praeceptorum ventricolas minus incurvat.

12. Nonne his verbis suis id agere videtur, ut etiam die dominico jejunetur? Alioquin sanctior erit sabbati dies, quo Dominus in monumento requievit, quam dominicus, quo a mortuis resurrexit. Sanctius est enim profecto sabbatum, si secundum verba hujus, in sabbato per jejunium peccatum omne vitatur, et quod diebus aliis contractum est, aboletur: in dominico autem per escam ventris tentatio non cavetur, et diabolicae calumniae locus datur, et paradiso peritur, et primatus amittitur. Quid ergo est, quod rursus sibi ipse contrarius admonet, ut non prandio modesto, sobrio, christiano, reficiamur dominico die, sed in alogia laetantes plaudentesque cantemus: Saturasti, Domine, animam inanem, et potasti animam sitientem? Nempe si tunc non erramus, quando jejunamus, et aliorum sex dierum errores tunc abluimus, cum sabbato jejunamus; nullus erit die dominico deterior, nullus sabbato melior. Crede, dilectissime frater, nemo legem, sicut iste, intelligit, nisi qui non intelligit. Si enim Adam non cibus, sed prohibitus cibus perdidit (Gen. III, 6), et Esau nepotem sancti Abrahae non esca, sed usque ad contemptum sacramenti quod in primatu suo habuit, concupita esca damnavit (Gen. XXV, 33, 34): sic a sanctis et fidelibus pie prandetur, quemadmodum a sacrilegis et incredulis impie jejunatur. Praeponitur autem dies dominicus sabbato fide resurrectionis, non consuetudine refectionis, aut etiam vinolentae licentia cantionis.

CAP. VI.

13. Moyses, inquit, quadraginta diebus panem non manducavit, nec bibit aquam. Cur autem hoc dixerit, subjungit atque ait: Ecce Moyses amicus Dei, nubis inquilinus, delator Legis, et populi dux, ter bina sabbata jejunio celebrans non offensam, sed meritum collocavit. Numquid attendit quid hinc possit consequenter opponi? Quia utique si Moysi jejunantis propterea ponit exemplum, quoniam in illis quadraginta diebus ter bina, sicut loquitur, sabbata jejunavit, et ex hoc vult persuadere ut sabbato jejunetur; ex 0142 hoc ergo persuadeat ut et dominico jejunetur, quia in illis quadraginta diebus nihilominus Moyses ter binos dominicos jejunavit. Sed addit ac dicit, Et adhuc cum Christo dominicus dies imminenti Ecclesiae servabatur. quod cur dixerit, nescio. Si enim propterea quia multo magis jejunandum est, posteaquam venit cum Christo dominicus dies; ergo, quod absit, etiam ipso dominico jejunetur. Si autem timuit ne propter dierum quadraginta jejunium objiceretur etiam dominico jejunandum, et ideo addidit quod adhuc cum Christo imminenti Ecclesiae dies dominicus servabatur, ut videlicet ea causa intelligatur jejunasse Moyses etiam die qui sequitur sabbatum, quia nondum venerat Christus, per quem factus est ipse dies dominicus, quo non expediat jejunari; cur ipse Christus quadraginta diebus similiter jejunavit? cur non in illis diebus quadraginta, ter binis qui sequebantur sabbatum, jejunium solvit, ut jam dominici diei prandium commendaret etiam ante resurrectionem suam, sicut sanguinem suum potandum dedit ante passionem? Vides certe dierum quadraginta jejunium, quod iste commemorat, sic ad rem non pertinere ut sabbato jejunemus, quomodo ad rem non pertinet ut dominico jejunemus.

14. Prorsus non attendit, quid ei de die dominico possit opponi, quando sicut accusanda sunt ebriosa convivia, et omnis vorax ac temulenta luxuries, sic accusat prandia sabbatorum, cum possint et ipsa esse modestorum atque sobriorum. Et ideo non est illi ad singula respondendum, quoniam pro sabbati prandio vitia luxuriae reprehendendo, eadem atque eadem saepe dicit; aliud non inveniendo quod dicat, nisi quod inaniter et ad rem non pertinens dicit. Utrum non sit sabbato jejunandum quaeritur, non utrum sabbato non sit luxuriandum; quod nec dominico faciunt qui Deum timent, quamvis in illo utique non jejunent. Quis autem diceret quod iste ausus est dicere? Quomodo, inquit, pro nobis, aut per nos rata erunt Deo, aut digna, quae nos sanctificata die ad peccatum cogant? Sanctificatam diem sabbati confitetur, et ad peccatum dicit cogi homines, quia prandetur. Ac per hoc secundum istum, aut dies dominicus sanctificatus non est, et incipit esse sabbatum melius; aut si est et dominicus dies sanctificatus, ad peccatum cogimur, quia prandemus.

CAP. VII.

15. Et conatur testimoniis probare divinis sabbato jejunandum: sed unde hoc probet omnino non invenit. Manducavit, inquit, et bibit Jacob vinum, et satiatus est, et recessit a Deo salutari suo, et ceciderunt una die viginti tria millia (Exod. XXXII, 6, 8, 28): quasi dictum sit, Prandit sabbato Jacob, et recessit a Deo salutari suo. Et Apostolus quando commemoravit cecidisse tot millia, non ait: Neque prandeamus sabbato, sicut illi pranderunt; sed ait: Neque fornicemur, sicut quidam eorum fornicati sunt, et ceciderunt una die viginti tria millia. Quid sibi etiam vult quod ait: Sedit autem populus manducare et bibere, et surrexerunt ludere? (I Cor. X, 8, 7.) Posuit quidem et Apostolus hoc testimonium, sed ut a servitute idolorum, non a sabbati prandio prohiberet. Sabbato 0143 autem illud factum esse, iste non probat, sed ut libitum est suspicatur. Sicut autem fieri potest ut jejunetur, et cum jejunium solvitur, si quis ebriosus est, tunc inebrietur; ita fieri potest ut non jejunetur, et si temperantes sunt homines, modestissime prandeatur. Quid est ergo quod sabbati volens persuadere jejunium, adhibet Apostolum testem dicentem, Nolite inebriari vino, in quo est omnis luxuria (Eph. V, 18); quasi diceret: Nolite prandere sabbato, quia ibi est omnis luxuria. Sicut autem hoc praeceptum apostolicum ne inebrientur vino, in quo est omnis luxuria, observatur a christianis Deum timentibus, quando prandetur die dominico, ita observatur quando prandetur et sabbato.

16. Ut expressius, inquit, errantibus contradicam, nemo jejunio Deum, etsi non promeretur, offendit; porro et non offendere promereri est. Quis hoc diceret, nisi qui nollet considerare quid diceret? Ergo Pagani quando jejunant, non ideo magis offendunt Deum: aut si de christianis voluit quod dixit intelligi, quis non Deum offendet, si velit cum scandalo totius quae ubique dilatatur Ecclesiae, die dominico jejunare? Deinde subjicit testimonia de Scripturis ad causam quam suscepit nihil valentia. Jejunio, inquit, Elias paradiso donatus in corpore regnat: quasi jejunium non praedicent qui sabbato non jejunant, sicut jejunium praedicant, qui tamen die dominico non jejunant; aut Elias eo tempore jejunaverit, quo populus Dei etiam sabbato jejunabat. Quod autem respondimus de quadraginta diebus jejunii Moysi, hoc deputa esse responsum et de quadraginta diebus Eliae. Jejunio, inquit, Daniel leonum siccam rabiem illaesus evasit: quasi legerit quod sabbato jejunaverit, aut etiam cum ipsis leonibus sabbato fuerit; ubi tamen legimus quod et pranderit. Jejunio, inquit, trium fida germanitas ignibus coruscanti carceri dominata, rogi hospitio susceptum Dominum adoravit. Haec exempla sanctorum, nec ad persuadendum cujuscumque diei jejunium valent; quanto minus sabbati? Quandoquidem non solum non legitur tres viros sabbato fuisse missos in caminum ignis ardentem; sed ne illud quidem legitur, tamdiu illic eos fuisse ut possit quisquam dicere eos jejunasse, imo vero vix unius horae spatium est, quo eorum confessio hymnusque cantatur: nec amplius inter illas flammas innoxias deambulaverunt, quam canticum illud terminaverunt. Nisi forte ab isto etiam unius horae spatium jejunio deputatur. Quod si ita est, non habet quod succenseat pransoribus sabbati: usque ad horam enim prandii, multo quam in illo camino prolixius jejunatur.

17. Adhibet et illud Apostoli testimonium, ubi ait: Non est regnum Dei esca et potus, sed justitia et pax, et gaudium in Spiritu sancto (Rom. XIV, 17); et regnum Dei, Ecclesiam vult intelligi, in qua Deus regnat. Obsecro te, numquid hoc agebat Apostolus, cum ista loqueretur, ut sabbato a christianis jejunaretur? Sed nec de ipso cujuscumque diei jejunio loquebatur, cum haec diceret. Dictum est enim adversus eos qui, more Judaeorum, secundum veterem Legem in observatione quorumdam ciborum putabant esse munditiam, et ad 0144 eorum fratrum admonitionem, per quorum escam et potum indifferenter acceptum scandalizabantur infirmi. Ideo cum dixisset: Noli illum in esca tua perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est (Ibid., 15); et, Non ergo blasphemetur bonum nostrum (Ibid., 16); tunc adjunxit: Non enim est regnum Dei esca et potus. Nam sicut iste verba haec Apostoli intelligit, ut regnum Dei, quod est Ecclesia, non sit in esca et potu, sed in jejunio; non dico, sabbatis jejunare, sed nunquam omnino cibum ac potum sumere deberemus, ne de isto Dei regno unquam recederemus. Puto autem quia isto confitente, aliquanto religiosius die dominico ad Ecclesiam pertinemus, quando tamen et ipso concedente prandemus.

CAP. VIII.

18. Cur, inquit, sacrificium potiori Domino charum murmuramus offerre, quod spiritus desiderat et angelus laudat? deinde adjungit angeli testimonium dicentis: Bona est oratio cum jejunio et eleemosyna (Tob. XII, 8). Quid dixerit, potiori Domino, nescio, nisi forte scriptor erravit, et te fugit, ut quod mihi legendum misisti non emendares. Sacrificium ergo Domino charum, jejunium vult intelligi, quasi de jejunio versetur haec quaestio, et non de jejunio sabbati. Neque enim dominicus dies sine sacrificio, quod Deo charum est, peragitur, quia non jejunatur. Sequitur adhuc et ingerit testimonia a causa, quam defendendam suscepit, penitus aliena. Immola, inquit, Deo sacrificium laudis (Psal. XLIX, 14); et istam vocem divini psalmi volens ad quod agitur nescio quomodo connectere: Utique, inquit, non sanguinis aut ebrietatis convivium, quo non laudes debitae Deo, sed blasphemiae diabolo suffragante silvescunt. O improvidam praesumptionem! Non ergo immolatur sacrificium laudis dominico die, quia non jejunatur; sed agitur ebrietatis convivium, et blasphemiae diabolo suffragante silvescunt. Quod si nefas est dicere; intelligat non jejunium significari in eo quod scriptum est: Immola Deo sacrificium laudis. Jejunium quippe certis diebus, et maxime festis non agitur. Sacrificium vero laudis ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa diebus omnibus immolatur. Alioquin quod nullus, non dico christianus, sed nec insanus dicere auderet, dies illi quinquaginta post Pascha usque ad Pentecosten quibus non jejunatur, erunt secundum istum a sacrificio laudis alieni, quibus tantummodo diebus in multis ecclesiis, in omnibus autem maxime cantatur Alleluia; quam vocem laudis esse nullus christianus, quamlibet imperitus, ignorat.

19. Confitetur tamen etiam ipso die dominico non in ebrietate, sed in jucunditate pranderi, cum dicit debere nos ex Judaeis et Gentibus multos christianos nomine, fide paucos electos, vespertino sabbatorum incenso, pro pecudum victimis jejunium Deo placitum laudibus immolare, cujus fervore cremata deficiant opera delictorum. Et mane, inquit, exaudiat nos a nobis auditus, et erunt nobis domus ad manducandum et bibendum, non in ebrietate, sed in jucunditate, dominica celebritate perfecta. Tunc ergo eulogia, non ut superius ait, alogia celebratur. Sed quid eum offendit sabbati dies, quem Dominus sanctificavit, ignoro, ut 0145 in eo non putet posse manducari et bibi cum tali jucunditate quae careat ebrietate; cum sic ante sabbatum jejunare possimus, quomodo dicit ante dominicum sabbato jejunandum: an continuo biduo pranderi nefas esse arbitratur? Videat ergo quanta afficiat contumelia ipsam quoque Romanam Ecclesiam, ubi et his hebdomadibus, in quibus quarta et sexta et sabbato jejunatur, tribus tamen diebus continuis, dominico scilicet ac deinde secunda et tertia prandetur.

20. Ovium vitam certum est, inquit, arbitrio pendere pastorum: sed «Vae qui dicunt quod bonum malum, et tenebras lucem, et lucem tenebras, et amarum dulce, et dulce amarum» (Isai. V, 20). Quid sibi velint haec verba ejus, non satis intelligo. Si enim haec, ut scribis, sic Urbicus dicit; in Urbe plebs pendens ex pastoris arbitrio cum episcopo suo jejunat sabbato. Si autem sic ad te ista scripsit, quia in epistola tua et ipse quiddam tale scripsisti; non tibi persuadeat urbem christianam sic laudare sabbato jejunantem, ut cogaris orbem christianum damnare prandentem. Cum enim dicit: Vae qui dicunt quod bonum malum, et tenebras lucem, et lucem tenebras, et amarum dulce, et dulce amarum, jejunium sabbati volens intelligi bonum et lucem et dulce, prandium vero, malum et tenebras et amarum; quis eum dubitat in omnibus christianis sabbato prandentibus universum orbem damnare terrarum? Nec se ipse respicit, nec quid dicat attendit, ut scriptis suis ab ista praecipiti cohibeatur audacia. Continuo quippe subjunxit, Nemo ergo vos judicet in esca aut in potu (Coloss. II, 16): quod ipse utique facit, qui sabbato sumentes escam potumque sic arguit. Quantum erat, ut hinc ei veniret in mentem etiam illud quod idem apostolus alibi dicit: Qui manducat, non manducantem non spernat; et qui non manducat, manducantem non judicet? (Rom. XIV, 3.) Istum modum, hoc temperamentum, quo scandala devitaret, inter jejunantes sabbato et manducantes teneret, ut et ipsum non manducantem manducans quisque non sperneret, et ipse non manducans manducantem non judicaret.

CAPUT IX.

21. Petrus etiam, inquit, Apostolorum caput, coeli janitor, et Ecclesiae fundamentum, exstincto Simone qui diaboli fuerat nonnisi jejunio vincendi figura, idipsum Romanos edocuit, quorum fides annuntiatur universo orbi terrarum. Numquid ergo caeteri Apostoli prandere Christianos contra Petrum docuerunt in universo orbe terrarum? Sicut itaque inter se vixerunt concorditer Petrus et condiscipuli ejus, sic inter se concorditer vivant sabbato jejunantes quos plantavit Petrus, et sabbato prandentes quos plantaverunt condiscipuli ejus. Est quidem et haec opinio plurimorum, quamvis eam perhibeant esse falsam plerique Romani, quod apostolus Petrus cum Simone mago die dominico certaturus, propter ipsum magnae tentationis periculum, pridie cum ejusdem urbis Ecclesia jejunaverit, et consecuto tam prospero gloriosoque successu, 0146 eumdem morem tenuerit, eumque imitatae sint nonnullae Occidentis Ecclesiae. Sed si, ut iste dicit, Simon magus figura erat diaboli, non plane sabbatarius aut dominicarius, sed quotidianus est ille tentator; nec tamen adversus eum quotidie jejunatur, quando et diebus dominicis omnibus, e quinquaginta post Pascha, et per diversa loca diebus solemnibus martyrum et festis quibusque prandetur: et tamen diabolus vincitur, si oculi nostri sint semper ad Dominum, ut ipse evellat de laqueo pedes nostros (Psal. XXIV, 15); et sive manducamus sive bibimus, sive quodcumque facimus, omnia in gloriam Dei faciamus; et quantum in nobis est, sine offensione simus Judaeis et Graecis et Ecclesiae Dei (I Cor. X, 31, 32). Quod parum cogitant, qui cum offensione manducant, vel cum offensione jejunant, et per utramlibet intemperantiam scandala concitant, quibus non superatur diabolus, sed laetatur.

22. Quod si respondetur, hoc docuisse Jacobum Jerosolymis, Ephesi Joannem, caeterosque aliis locis, quod docuit Romae Petrus, id est ut sabbato jejunetur, sed ab hac doctrina terras caeteras deviasse, atque in ea Romam stetisse: et e contrario refertur Occidentis potius aliqua loca in quibus Roma est, non servasse quod Apostoli tradiderunt; Orientis vero terras, unde coepit ipsum Evangelium praedicari, in eo quod ab omnibus simul cum ipso Petro Apostolis traditum est, ne sabbato jejunetur, sine aliqua varietate mansisse: interminabilis est ista contentio, generans lites, non finiens quaestiones. Sit ergo una fides universae quae ubique dilatatur Ecclesiae, tanquam intus in membris, etiamsi ipsa fidei unitas quibusdam diversis observationibus celebratur, quibus nullo modo quod in fide verum est impeditur. Omnis enim pulchritudo filiae regis intrinsecus (Psal. XLIV, 14): illae autem observationes quae variae celebrantur, in ejus veste intelliguntur; unde ibi dicitur, In fimbriis aureis circumamicta varietate (Ibid., 15). Sed ea quoque vestis ita diversis celebrationibus varietur, ut non adversus contentionibus dissipetur.

CAPUT X.

23. Postremo, inquit, si Judaeus sabbatum colendo dominicum negat, quomodo Christianus observat sabbatum? Aut simus Christiani, et dominicum colamus; aut simus Judaei, et sabbatum observemus: «Nemo enim potest duobus dominis servire» (Matth. VI, 24). Nonne ita loquitur, tanquam sabbati alius dominus sit, alius dominici? Nec illud audit quod et ipse commemoravit: Dominus est enim sabbati Filius hominis (Luc. VI, 5). Quod autem ita nos vult esse a sabbato alienos, sicut Judaei sunt a dominico alieni, nonne tantum errat ut possit etiam dicere, ita nos non debere accipere Legem nec Prophetas, sicut Judaei non accipiunt Evangelium nec Apostolos? Quod qui sapit, quid mali sapiat utique intelligis. Sed vetera, inquit, omnia transierunt, et in Christo facta sunt nova (II Cor. V, 17): hoc verum est. Nam propterea sicut Judaei sabbatis non vacamus, etiamsi ad significandam requiem quae illo die significata est, christiana sobrietate et frugalitate servata, jejunii vinculum relaxamus. 0147 Et si aliqui fratres nostri requiem sabbati, relaxatione jejunii significandam esse non putant, nequaquam de vestis regiae varietate litigamus, ne ipsius reginae, ubi unam fidem etiam de ipsa requie retinemus, interiora membra vexemus. Etsi enim quia vetera transierunt, cum eis transiit etiam carnalis vacatio sabbati; non tamen quia sabbato et dominico sine superstitiosa vacatione prandemus, ideo duobus dominis servimus, quia et sabbati et dominici unus est dominus.

24. Iste autem qui vetera transisse sic dicit, ut in Christo cederet ara altari, gladius jejunio, precibus ignis, pani pecus, poculo sanguis, nescit altaris nomen magis Legis et Prophetarum Litteris frequentatum, et altare Deo prius in tabernaculo, quod per Moysen factum est, collocatum (Exod. XL, 24); aram quoque in apostolicis Litteris inveniri, ubi Martyres clamant sub ara Dei (Apoc. VI, 9, 10). Dicit cessisse jejunio gladium, non recordans illum quo milites evangelici armantur ex utroque Testamento, gladium bis acutum (Eph. VI, 17, et Hebr. IV, 12). Dicit cessisse precibus ignem, quasi non et tunc preces deferebantur in templum, et nunc a Christo ignis est missus in mundum (Luc. XII, 49). Dicit cessisse pani pecus, tanquam nesciens et tunc in Domini mensa panes propositionis poni solere (Exod. XXV, 30), et nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere. Dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem, non cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sanguinem (Luc. XXII, 7-20). Quanto ergo melius et congruentius vetera transisse, et nova in Christo facta esse sic diceret, ut cederet altare altari, gladius gladio, ignis igni, panis pani, pecus pecori, sanguis sanguini. Videmus quippe in his omnibus carnalem vetustatem spirituali cedere novitati. Sic ergo intelligendum est, sive in isto die volubili septimo prandeatur, sive a quibusdam etiam jejunetur, tamen sabbato spirituali sabbatum carnale cessisse; quando in isto sempiterna et vera requies concupiscitur, in illo vacatio temporalis jam superstitiosa contemnitur.

CAP. XI.

25. Caetera quae sequuntur, quibus suam disputationem iste concludit, sicut alia quaedam quae inde commemoranda non arbitratus sum, multo magis ad causam non pertinent, in qua de jejunio sabbati vel prandio disputatur. Sed ea tibi ipsi, maxime si ex iis quae a me dicta sunt aliquid adjuvaris, advertenda et judicanda dimitto. Si autem quoniam huic quantum potui sufficienter respondisse me puto, de hac re sententiam meam quaeris, ego in evangelicis et apostolicis Litteris, totoque instrumento quod appellatur Testamentum Novum, animo id revolvens, video praeceptum esse jejunium. Quibus autem diebus non oporteat jejunare, et quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini vel apostolorum non invenio definitum. Ac per hoc sentio, non quidem ad obtinendam, quam fides obtinet atque justitia in qua est pulchritudo filiae regis intrinsecus, sed tamen ad significandam 0148 requiem sempiternam ubi est verum sabbatum, relaxationem quam constrictionem jejunii aptius convenire.

26. Verumtamen in hujus sabbati jejunio sive prandio, nihil mihi videtur tutius pacatiusque servari, quam ut qui manducat, non manducantem non spernat, et qui non manducat, manducantem non judicet; quia neque si manducaverimus abundabimus, neque si non manducaverimus egebimus (Rom. XIV, 3): custodita scilicet eorum inter quos vivimus, et cum quibus Deo vivimus , in his rebus inoffensa societate. Sicut enim quod ait Apostolus verum est, malum esse homini qui per offensionem manducat (Ibid., 20, et I Cor. VIII, 8); ita malum est homini qui per offensionem jejunat. Non itaque simus eis similes, qui videntes Joannem non manducantem nec bibentem, dixerunt: Daemonium habet. Sed nec rursus eis, qui videntes Christum manducantem et bibentem, dixerunt: Ecce homo vorax et vinosus, amicus publicanorum et peccatorum (Matth. XI, 19). Rem quippe valde necessariam his dictis Dominus ipse subjecit atque ait: Et justificata est sapientia in filiis suis (Ibid.). Qui sint autem isti, si requiris, lege quod scriptum est: Filii sapientiae Ecclesia justorum (Eccli. III, 1): ii sunt qui quando manducant, non manducantes non spernunt; quando non manducant, manducantes non judicant; sed eos plane qui per offensionem non manducant sive manducant, vel spernunt vel judicant.

CAPUT XII.

27. Et de die quidem sabbati facilior causa est, quia et Romana jejunat Ecclesia, et aliae nonnullae, etiamsi paucae, sive illi proximae sive longinquae: die autem dominico jejunare scandalum est magnum, maxime posteaquam innotuit detestabilis multumque fidei catholicae Scripturisque divinis apertissime contraria haeresis Manichaeorum, qui suis auditoribus ad jejunandum istum tanquam constituerunt legitimum diem; per quod factum est, ut jejunium diei dominici horribilius haberetur. Nisi forte aliquis idoneus sit nulla refectione interposita ultra hebdomadem perpetuare jejunium, ut jejunio quadraginta dierum, quantum potuerit, appropinquet, sicut aliquos fecisse cognovimus. Nam et ad ipsum quadragenarium numerum pervenisse quemdam, a fratribus fide dignissimis nobis asseveratum est. Quemadmodum enim veterum patrum temporibus, Moyses et Elias nihil contra prandia sabbatorum fecerunt, cum diebus quadraginta jejunaverunt; ita qui potuerit septem dies jejunando transire, non sibi ad jejunandum elegit dominicum diem, sed in iis eum invenit, quos jejunaturum se vovit plurimos dies. Jejunium tamen etiam continuatum si in hebdomade solvendum est, nullo congruentius quam dominico die solvitur. Si autem post hebdomadem corpus reficitur, non utique ad jejunandum dies dominicus eligitur; sed in numero, quem voveri placuit, invenitur.

28. Nec illud moveat quod Priscillianistae, Manichaeorum simillimi, ad jejunandum die dominico solent 0149 testimonium de Apostolorum Actibus adhibere, cum esset apostolus Paulus in Troade. Sic enim scriptum est: In una autem sabbati congregatis nobis frangere panem, Paulus disputabat illis, exiturus alia die, produxitque sermonem usque ad medium noctis (Act. XX, 7). Deinde cum descendisset de coenaculo, ubi congregati erant, ad resuscitandum adolescentem, qui gravatus somno de fenestra ceciderat et mortuus ferebatur, de ipso Apostolo Scriptura sic loquitur: Ascendens autem, inquit, cum fregisset panem atque gustasset, satisque esset allocutus usque ad diluculum, sic profectus est (Ibid., 11). Absit ut hoc sic accipiatur, tanquam solerent Apostoli dominico die solemniter jejunare. Una enim sabbati tunc appellabatur dies, qui nunc dominicus appellatur, quod in Evangeliis apertius invenitur. Nam dies resurrectionis Domini, prima sabbati a Matthaeo, a caeteris autem tribus una sabbati dicitur (Matth. XXVIII, 1; Marc. XVI, 2; Luc. XXIV, 1; et Joan. XX, 1); quem constat eum esse, qui dominicus postea appellatus est. Aut ergo post peractum diem sabbati, noctis initio fuerant congregati, quae utique nox jam ad diem dominicum, hoc est ad unam sabbati pertinebat; et ita eadem nocte fracturus panem, sicut frangitur in sacramento corporis Christi, produxit sermonem usque ad medium noctis, ut post sacramenta celebrata, rursus usque ad diluculum alloquens congregatos, quoniam multum festinabat, ut lucescente proficisceretur dominico die: aut certe si in una sabbati non per noctem, sed per diem hora dominici fuerant congregati; eo ipso quo dictum est, Paulus disputabat illis, exiturus alia die, expressa est causa producendi sermonis, quia fuerat exiturus, et eos sufficienter instruere cupiebat. Non ergo solemniter die dominico jejunabant, sed necessarius sermo, qui studii ferventissimi audiebatur ardore, reficiendi corporis causa interrumpendus esse non visus est profecturo Apostolo, qui eos, propter alios suos usquequaque discursus, vel alias nunquam, vel rarissime visitabat; praesertim quia tunc ex illis terris sicut consequentia docent, ita discessurus erat, ut jam non esset eos in carne visurus. Ac per hoc magis ostenditur dominicis diebus solita illis non fuisse jejunia, quia ne hoc crederetur, curavit scriptor libri causam producendi sermonis exponere; ut sciremus si aliqua necessitas oriatur, urgentiori actioni non esse prandium praeferendum: quamvis ab istis avidissime audientibus, et ipsum fontem cogitantibus profecturum, atque ideo magna siti non aquae, sed verbi sine satietate quidquid influebat haurientibus, non tantum carnale prandium, verum etiam coena contempta est.

29. Sed tunc quamvis dominico die solita illis jejunia non fuissent, non erat tamen Ecclesiae tam insignis offensio, si aliqua tali necessitate, qualem apostolus Paulus habuit, die toto dominico usque ad medium noctis, vel etiam usque ad diluculum reficere corpora non curarent. Nunc vero posteaquam haeretici, maxime impiissimi Manichaei , jejunia diei dominici 0150 non aliqua necessitate occurrente peragere, sed quasi sacra solemnitate statuta dogmatizare coeperunt et innotuerunt populis christianis; profecto nec tali necessitate, qualem Apostolus habuit, existimo faciendum esse quod fecit, ne majus malum incurratur in scandalo, quam bonum percipiatur ex verbo. Quidquid tamen causae vel necessitatis exstiterit, cur homo christianus die dominico jejunare cogatur, sicut etiam illud in Actibus Apostolorum invenimus, in naufragii periculo, ubi et ipse Apostolus navigabat, quatuordecim diebus, ac per hoc duobus dominicis jejunatum (Act. XXVII, 33); nullo modo dubitare debemus, dominicum diem, quando non plures dies sine ulla refectione continuandi voventur, inter jejuniorum dies non esse ponendum.

CAPUT XIII.

30. Cur autem quarta et sexta maxime jejunet Ecclesia, illa ratio reddi videtur, quod considerato Evangelio, ipsa quarta sabbati, quam vulgo quartam feriam vocant, consilium reperiuntur ad occidendum Dominum fecisse Judaei. Intermisso autem uno die, cujus vespera Dominus Pascha cum discipulis manducavit, qui finis fuit ejus diei quem vocamus quintam sabbati, deinde traditus est ea nocte quae jam ad sextam sabbati, qui dies passionis ejus manifestus est, pertinebat. Hic dies primus azymorum fuit a vespera incipiens. Sed Matthaeus evangelista quintam sabbati dicit fuisse primam diem azymorum; quia ejus vespera sequente, futura erat coena paschalis, qua coena incipiebat azymum et ovis immolatio manducari. Ex quo colligitur quartam sabbati fuisse, quando ait Dominus: Scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet, et Filius hominis tradetur ut crucifigatur (Matth. XXVI, 2): ac per hoc dies ipse jejunio deputatus est, quia, sicut Evangelista sequitur et dicit, Tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populi in atrium principis sacerdotum, qui dicebatur Caiphas, et consilium fecerunt ut Jesum dolo tenerent et occiderent (Ibid, 3, 4). Intermisso autem uno die, de quo dicit Evangelium, Prima autem azymorum accesserunt discipuli ad Jesum dicentes: Ubi vis paremus tibi comedere pascha (Ibid., 17)? hoc ergo die intermisso, passus est Dominus, quod nullus ambigit, sexta sabbati; quapropter et ipsa sexta recte jejunio deputatur: jejunia quippe humilitatem significant. Unde dictum est: Et humiliabam in jejunio animam meam (Psal. XXXIV, 13).

31. Sequitur sabbatum, quo die caro Christi in monumento requievit, sicut in primis operibus mundi requievit Deus die illo ab omnibus operibus suis. Hinc exorta est ista in reginae illius veste varietas, ut alii, sicut maxime populi Orientis, propter requiem significandam mallent relaxare jejunium, alii propter humilitatem mortis Domini jejunare, sicut Romana et nonnullae Occidentis Ecclesiae. Quod quidem uno die, quo Pascha celebratur propter renovandam rei gestae memoriam, qua discipuli humanitus mortem Domini doluerunt, sic ab omnibus jejunatur, ut etiam illi sabbati jejunium devotissime celebrent, qui caeteris per totum annum sabbatis prandent; utrumque videlicet significantes, et in uno anniversario die luctum discipulorum, 0151 et caeteris sabbatis quietis bonum. Duo quippe sunt, quae justorum beatitudinem, et omnis miseriae finem sperari faciunt, mors et resurrectio mortuorum. In morte requies est, de qua dicitur per Prophetam: Plebs mea intra in cellaria tua; abscondere pusillum donec transeat ira Domini (Isai. XXVI, 20). In resurrectione autem in homine toto, id est, in carne et spiritu perfecta felicitas. Hinc factum est ut horum duorum utrumque non significandum putaretur labore jejunii, sed potius refectionis hilaritate, excepto paschali uno sabbato, quo discipulorum, sicut diximus, luctus propter rei gestae memoriam fuerat jejunio prolixiore signandus.

CAPUT XIV.

32. Sed quoniam non invenimus, ut jam supra commemoravi, in evangelicis et apostolicis Litteris, quae ad Novi Testamenti revelationem proprie pertinent, certis diebus aliquibus evidenter praeceptum observanda esse jejunia, et ideo res quoque ista, sicut aliae plurimae quas enumerare difficile est, invenit in veste illius filiae regis, hoc est Ecclesiae, varietatis locum; indicabo tibi quid mihi de hoc requirenti responderit venerandus Ambrosius, a quo baptizatus sum, Mediolanensis episcopus. Nam cum in eadem civitate mater mea mecum esset, et nobis adhuc catechumenis parum ista curantibus, illa sollicitudinem gereret utrum secundum morem nostrae civitatis sibi esset sabbato jejunandum, an Ecclesiae Mediolanensis more prandendum, ut hac eam cunctatione liberarem, interrogavi hoc supradictum hominem Dei. At ille: Quid possum, inquit, hinc docere amplius quam ipse facio? Ubi ego putaveram nihil eum ista responsione praecepisse, nisi ut sabbato pranderemus; hoc quippe ipsum facere sciebam: sed ille secutus adjecit, Quando hic sum, non jejuno sabbato; quando Romae sum, jejuno sabbato: et ad quamcumque Ecclesiam veneritis, inquit, ejus morem servate, si pati scandalum non vultis aut facere. Hoc responsum retuli ad matrem, eique suffecit, nec dubitavit esse obediendum: hoc etiam nos secuti sumus. Sed quoniam contingit, maxime in Africa, ut una Ecclesia vel unius regionis Ecclesiae, alios habeant sabbato prandentes, alios jejunantes; mos eorum mihi sequendus videtur, quibus eorum populorum congregatio regenda commissa est. Quapropter si consilio meo, praesertim quia in hac causa plus forte quam satis fuit, te petente atque urgente, locutus sum, libenter acquiescis; episcopo tuo in hac re noli resistere, et quod facit ipse, sine ullo scrupulo vel disceptatione sectare.