Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To Januarius
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter LIV.
Styled also Book I. of Replies to Questions of Januarius.
(a.d. 400.)
To His Beloved Son Januarius,
Augustin Sends Greeting in the Lord.
Chap. I.
1. In regard to the questions which you have
asked me, I would like to have known what your own answers would
have been; for thus I might have made my reply in fewer words, and
might most easily confirm or correct your opinions, by approving or
amending the answers which you had given. This I would have greatly
preferred. But desiring to answer you at once, I think it better to
write a long letter than incur loss of time. I desire you
therefore, in the first place, to hold fast this as the fundamental
principle in the present discussion, that our Lord Jesus Christ has
appointed to us a “light yoke” and an “easy burden,” as He
declares in the Gospel:1719
in accordance with which He has
bound His people under the new dispensation together in fellowship
by sacraments, which are in number very few, in observance most
easy, and in significance most excellent, as baptism solemnized in
the name of the Trinity, the communion of His body and blood, and
such other things as are prescribed in the canonical Scriptures,
with the exception of those enactments which were a yoke of bondage
to God’s ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to
the times of the prophets, and which are found in the five books of
Moses. As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not
of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout
the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as
approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by
plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful,
e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the
Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent
of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner
observed by the whole Church wherever it has been
established.
Chap. II.
2. There are other things, however, which are
different in different places and countries: e.g., some fast
on Saturday, others do not; some partake daily of the body and
blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days: in some places
no day passes without the sacrifice being offered; in others it is
only on Saturday and the Lord’s day, or it may be only on the
Lord’s day. In regard to these and all other variable observances
which may be met anywhere, one is at liberty to comply with them or
not as he chooses; and there is no better rule for the wise and
serious Christian in this matter, than to conform to the practice
which he finds prevailing in the Church to which it may be his lot
to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the
faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent,
and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those
among whom we live.
3. I think you may have heard me relate
before,1720
| 1720 Compare Letter XXXVI. sec. 32, p. 270. | what I
will nevertheless now mention. When my mother followed me to Milan,
she found the Church there not fasting on Saturday. She began to be
troubled, and to hesitate as to what she should do; upon which I,
though not taking a personal interest then in such things, applied
on her behalf to Ambrose, of most blessed memory, for his advice.
He answered that he could not teach me anything but what he himself
practised, because if he knew any better rule, he would observe it
himself. When I supposed that he intended, on the ground of his
authority alone, and without supporting it by any argument, to recommend us
to give up fasting on Saturday, he followed me, and said: “When I
visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On
the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in
whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence
by your conduct, nor to find cause of offence in another’s.”
When I reported this to my mother, she accepted it gladly; and for
myself, after frequently reconsidering his decision, I have always
esteemed it as if I had received it by an oracle from heaven. For
often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes
caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or
superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind,
which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy
Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church or by their
manifest good influence on manners raise questions, it may be, from
some crotchet of their own, or from attachment to the custom
followed in one’s own country, or from preference for that which
one has seen abroad, supposing that wisdom is increased in
proportion to the distance to which men travel from home, and
agitate these questions with such keenness, that they think all is
wrong except what they do themselves.
Chap. III.
4. Some one may say, “The Eucharist ought
not to be taken every day.” You ask, “On what grounds?” He
answers, “Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to
so great a sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he
lives in more special purity and self-restraint; for ‘whosoever
eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself.’”1721
Another
answers, “Certainly; if the wound inflicted by sin and the
violence of the soul’s distemper be such that the use of these
remedies must be put off for a time, every man in this case should
be, by the authority of the bishop, forbidden to approach the
altar, and appointed to do penance, and should be afterwards
restored to privileges by the same authority; for this would be
partaking unworthily, if one should partake of it at a time when he
ought to be doing penance,1722
and it is not a matter to be left
to one’s own judgment to withdraw himself from the communion of
the Church, or restore himself, as he pleases. If, however, his
sins are not so great as to bring him justly under sentence of
excommunication, he ought not to withdraw himself from the daily
use of the Lord’s body for the healing of his soul.” Perhaps a
third party interposes with a more just decision of the question,
reminding them that the principal thing is to remain united in the
peace of Christ, and that each should be free to do what, according
to his belief, he conscientiously regards as his duty. For neither
of them lightly esteems the body and blood of the Lord; on the
contrary, both are contending who shall most highly honour the
sacrament fraught with blessing. There was no controversy between
those two mentioned in the Gospel, Zacchæus and the Centurion; nor
did either of them think himself better than the other, though,
whereas the former received the Lord joyfully into his house,1723
the latter
said, “I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my
roof,”1724
—both
honouring the Saviour, though in ways diverse and, as it were,
mutually opposed; both miserable through sin, and both obtaining
the mercy they required. We may further borrow an illustration
here, from the fact that the manna given to the ancient people of
God tasted in each man’s mouth as he desired that it might.1725
| 1725 In his Retractations, b. ii. ch. xx.,
Augustin remarks on this statement: “I do not recollect any
passage by which it could be substantiated, except from the book of
Wisdom (ch. xvi. 21), which the Jews do not admit
to be of canonical authority.” He says, in the same place, that
this peculiarity of the manna must have been enjoyed only by the
pious in Israel, not by the murmurers who said, “Our soul
loatheth this light bread” (Num. xxi. 5). | It is the
same with this world-subduing sacrament in the heart of each
Christian. For he that dares not take it every day, and he who
dares not omit it any day, are both alike moved by a desire to do
it honour. That sacred food will not submit to be despised, as the
manna could not be loathed with impunity. Hence the apostle says
that it was unworthily partaken of by those who did not distinguish
between this and all other meats, by yielding to it the special
veneration which was due; for to the words quoted already,
“eateth and drinketh judgment to himself,” he has added these,
“not discerning the Lord’s body;” and this is apparent from
the whole of that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
if it be carefully studied.
Chap. IV.
5. Suppose some foreigner visit a place in which
during Lent it is customary to abstain from the use of the bath,
and to continue fasting on Thursday. “I will not fast today,”
he says. The reason being asked, he says, “Such is not the custom
in my own country.” Is not he, by such conduct, attempting to
assert the superiority of his custom over theirs? For he cannot
quote a decisive passage on the subject from the Book of God; nor
can he prove his opinion to be right by the unanimous voice of the
universal Church, wherever spread abroad; nor can he demonstrate
that they act contrary to the faith, and he according to it, or
that they are doing what is prejudicial to sound morality, and he
is defending its interests. Those men injure their own tranquillity
and peace by quarrelling on an unnecessary question. I would rather
recommend that, in matters of this kind, each
man should, when sojourning in a
country in which he finds a custom different from his own consent
to do as others do. If, on the other hand, a Christian, when
travelling abroad in some region where the people of God are more
numerous, and more easily assembled together, and more zealous in
religion, has seen, e.g., the sacrifice twice offered, both
morning and evening, on the Thursday of the last week in Lent, and
therefore, on his coming back to his own country, where it is
offered only at the close of the day, protests against this as
wrong and unlawful, because he has himself seen another custom in
another land, this would show a childish weakness of judgment
against which we should guard ourselves, and which we must bear
with in others, but correct in all who are under our
influence.
Chap. V.
6. Observe now to which of these three classes
the first question in your letter is to be referred. You ask,
“What ought to be done on the Thursday of the last week of Lent?
Ought we to offer the sacrifice in the morning, and again after
supper, on account of the words in the Gospel, ‘Likewise also . .
. after supper’?1726
Or ought we to fast and offer the
sacrifice only after supper? Or ought we to fast until the offering
has been made, and then take supper as we are accustomed to do?”
I answer, therefore, that if the authority of Scripture has decided
which of these methods is right, there is no room for doubting that
we should do according to that which is written; and our discussion
must be occupied with a question, not of duty, but of
interpretation as to the meaning of the divine institution. In like
manner, if the universal Church follows any one of these methods,
there is no room for doubt as to our duty; for it would be the
height of arrogant madness to discuss whether or not we should
comply with it. But the question which you propose is not decided
either by Scripture or by universal practice. It must therefore be
referred to the third class—as pertaining, namely, to things
which are different in different places and countries. Let every
man, therefore, conform himself to the usage prevailing in the
Church to which he may come. For none of these methods is contrary
to the Christian faith or the interests of morality, as favoured by
the adoption of one custom more than the other. If this were the
case, that either the faith or sound morality were at stake, it
would be necessary either to change what was done amiss, or to
appoint the doing of what had been neglected. But mere change of
custom, even though it may be of advantage in some respects,
unsettles men by reason of the novelty: therefore, if it brings no
advantage, it does much harm by unprofitably disturbing the
Church.
7. Let me add, that it would be a mistake to
suppose that the custom prevalent in many places, of offering the
sacrifice on that day after partaking of food, is to be traced to
the words, “Likewise after supper,” etc. For the Lord might
give the name of supper to what they had received, in already
partaking of His body, so that it was after this that they partook
of the cup: as the apostle says in another place, “When ye come
together into one place, this is not to eat1727
the
Lord’s Supper,”1728
giving to the receiving of the
Eucharist to that extent (i.e. the eating of the bread) the
name of the Lord’s Supper.
Chap. VI.
As to the question whether upon that day it is right
to partake of food before either offering or partaking of the
Eucharist, these words in the Gospel might go far to decide our
minds, “As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it;”
taken in connection with the words in the preceding context,
“When the even was come, He sat down with the twelve: and as they
did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall
betray Me.” For it was after that that He instituted the
sacrament; and it is clear that when the disciples first received
the body and blood of the Lord, they had not been fasting.
8. Must we therefore censure the universal Church
because the sacrament is everywhere partaken of by persons fasting?
Nay, verily, for from that time it pleased the Holy Spirit to
appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of
the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the
mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom
referred to is universally observed. For the fact that the Lord
instituted the sacrament after other food had been partaken of,
does not prove that brethren should come together to partake of
that sacrament after having dined or supped, or imitate those whom
the apostle reproved and corrected for not distinguishing between
the Lord’s Supper and an ordinary meal. The Saviour, indeed, in
order to commend the depth of that mystery more affectingly to His
disciples, was pleased to impress it on their hearts and memories
by making its institution His last act before going from them to
His Passion. And therefore He did not prescribe the order in which
it was to be observed, reserving this to be done by the apostles,
through whom He intended to arrange all things pertaining to the
Churches. Had He appointed that the sacrament should be always
partaken of after other food, I believe that no one would have
departed from that practice. But when the apostle, speaking of this sacrament,
says, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat,
tarry one for another: and if any man hunger, let him eat at home;
that ye come not together unto condemnation,” he immediately
adds, “and the rest will I set in order when I come.”1729
Whence we
are given to understand that, since it was too much for him to
prescribe completely in an epistle the method observed by the
universal Church throughout the world, it was one of the things set
in order by him in person, for we find its observance uniform amid
all the variety of other customs.
Chap. VII.
9. There are, indeed, some to whom it has
seemed right (and their view is not unreasonable), that it is
lawful for the body and blood of the Lord to be offered and
received after other food has been partaken of, on one fixed day of
the year, the day on which the Lord instituted the Supper, in order
to give special solemnity to the service on that anniversary. I
think that, in this case, it would be more seemly to have it
celebrated at such an hour as would leave it in the power of any
who have fasted to attend the service before1730
| 1730 “Ante” is the reading of seven Mss. The Benedictine edition gives “post” in
the text. We think the former gives better sense. | the repast which is customary at
the ninth hour. Wherefore we neither compel nor do we dare to
forbid any one to break his fast before the Lord’s Supper on that
day. I believe, however, that the real ground upon which this
custom rests is, that many, nay, almost all, are accustomed in most
places to use the bath on that day. And because some continue to
fast, it is offered in the morning, for those who take food,
because they cannot bear fasting and the use of the bath at the
same time; and in the evening, for those who have fasted all
day.
10. If you ask me whence originated the custom of
using the bath on that day, nothing occurs to me, when I think of
it, as more likely than that it was to avoid the offence to decency
which must have been given at the baptismal font, if the bodies of
those to whom that rite was to be administered were not washed on
some preceding day from the uncleanness consequent upon their
strict abstinence from ablutions during Lent; and that this
particular day was chosen for the purpose because of its being the
anniversary of the institution of the Supper. And this being
granted to those who were about to receive baptism, many others
desired to join them in the luxury of a bath, and in relaxation of
their fast.
Having discussed these questions to the best of my
ability, I exhort you to observe, in so far as you may be able,
what I have laid down, as becomes a wise and peace-loving son of
the Church. The remainder of your questions I purpose, if the Lord
will, to answer at another time.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
