The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three bookes: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundrie places, and the other two annexed. Taught and deliuered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his owne briefes, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelour of Diuinitie. Whereunto is adioyned a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolued; another of the principall texts of Scripture vvhich are either explaned, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.

III. Question. Whether Popish Fasts be

lawfull, and approoued of God?

Ans. They are wicked, and therefore nei∣ther approoued of God, nor to be obserued by man; and that for three speciall causes.

First, the patrons & maintainers of them, doe appoint set times of fasting, which are, necessarily to be kept, vpon paine of mortall sinne. And abstinence from flesh (with them) is made a matter of conscience. Now to pre∣scribe set times necessarily to be obserued, is contrarie to that libertie, which the Church of God and the gouernours thereof haue for this purpose, onely vpon speciall occasion. When the question was mooued to our Savi∣our, by Iohns Disciples, Why they and the Pharises fasted often, whereas his fasted not; Answer was giuen in this manner, Can the children of the marriage chamber mourne, as long as the bridegrome is with them? But the daies will come, when the bridegrome shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast, Mat. 9. 15. From whence we may gather, that times of fasting must be, accor∣ding to the times of mourning. For Christ giues them to vnderstand, that they were to fast, as occasions of mourning were offered. As therefore, there can be appointed no set time for mourning, no more can there be enioyned a set time for fasting; but must be

left to the libertie of the Church, to be pre∣scribed, as God shall giue occasion. Againe, the Apostle reprooueth the Church of Ga∣latia, for obseruing set daies, and moneths, & times, and yeares, in way of Religion. Gal. 4. 10. Montanus the Hereticke is thought (in * 1.1 Ecclesiasticall stories) to haue beene the first, that made lawes for set-fasting. And the Churches of God in ancienter times, fasted of their own accords freely, not inforced by law or commandement, but as time and oc∣casion serued.

It is alleadged, that this doctrine seemes to chalenge the Church of England of He∣resie: for it appointeth and obserueth set times of fast. Ans. Nothing lesse. For our Church inioyneth and approoueth these times, not vpō necessity, or for religions sake, but for ciuill and politicke respects: whereas the Romish church, holds it a mortal sinne, to put off a set fast appointed, so much as till the next day following.

The second reason. They of the Church of Rome make a distinction of meates. For they wholly forbid flesh to be eaten vpon daies of fast, and allow whit-meates onely then to be vsed; and that of necessitie. Now this difference of meates is partly impious, partly absurd and foolish.

Impious it is, because they make it for Re∣ligions sake. For since the cōming of Christ, there is a libertie giuen to all men whatsoe∣uer,

to eate of all kindes of meates, without any distinction: commanding abstinence frō nothing, which God hath created, to be re∣ceiued with thanksgiuing. It is true indeede, we hold a difference betweene meate and meate, but how? not in way of religion, but in regard of temperance & health, for ci∣uill and politike vses, and respects. As for the other, we rest vpon the word of God, & hold it with Paul, a doctrine of Deuills, to command forbearance of meates, in regard of consci∣ence, 1. Tim. 4. 3.

But to this place of Paul, they giue an∣swer, and say, that it is spoken of Heretikes, such as the Manichees, & Novatiās &c. were, that held meats in their own nature vnclean. We on the other side reply, and say, that this text condemnes those that make meates any way vncleane. And that the Papists doe put this difference, in way of Religion, and con∣science; as appeareth by their strait pro∣hibitions of flesh as vncleane, and that for conscience sake. And this text they shall ne∣uer be able to shift off: for it plainely con∣demneth any such distinction; seeing to the pure, all things are pure; and euery creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, so it be receiued with thanksgiuing, 1. Tim. 4. 4.

Furthermore, this difference of meates is also foolish. For first, the light of nature and common sense teacheth, that in such meates, as they permit, there is as much delicacie,

pleasure, and contentment, yea as much (if not more) strength: for example: in some fish, fruits, and wines, as is in flesh by them forbidden. Yea S. Paul ascribes flesh vnto fi∣shes, 1. Cor. 15. 39. There is one flesh of men, an other of beasts, an other of fishes, &c. Secondly, I call it foolish, because in their set Fasts they forbid flesh, but permit diuers wines, and the daintiest iuncates that the Apothecaries shoppe can affoarde: whereas in a solemne fast, all meates, drinks, and all other delights, of what kinde and nature soeuer, are to be forborne. For this was the practise of the Church in former times, to forbeare not one∣ly ordinarie foode, but soft apparell, sweete oyntments, and whatsoeuer it was, that ser∣ued to refresh and cheare the heart, as hath beene shewed.

The third Reason. The Church of Rome giueth to their fastings, false and erroneous endes; as namely, to merit something at the hands of God thereby, to satisfie his iustice for sinne, and to be true and proper parts of his worship. And that these are false and er∣ronious, I prooue by these reasons.

First, they do wholly frustrate the death of Christ, which is the onely thing in the world appointed by God, to be meritorious and sa∣tisfactorie.

Secondly, Fasting of it selfe, is a thing in∣different, neither good nor euill. For though it be referred to a religious end, which is the

humbling of the soule; yet it is not good in it selfe, but onely in regard of the end. Neither is it any part of Gods worshippe, beeing so referred; but only a proppe and furtherance, seruing (in the right vse thereof) to make a man more fit for the duties of Gods seruice.

Thirdly, these ends if they be well consi∣dered, cannot be the true ends of fasting, as will appeare by this example. A begger at our doores, entreats an almes, we giue it, and he receiues it. But will any man say, that by begging he doth merit or deserue his almes? In like manner we are all beggers, that haue nothing of our owne, neither food nor rai∣ment, nor any other blessing we doe inioy, but all we haue, commeth vnto vs onely from God. Well, vpon iust occasion we giue our selues to fasting, we pray earnestly vnto him for mercie, in the pardon of our sinnes. In this case, is it not great madnesse to thinke, that we by begging mercie can merit mercie at the hands of God? But praier (saith the Pa∣pist) as it is praier, merits nothing, but as it is a good worke. Ans. Praier as it is a good worke, is no other then begging; and then it is vnpossible, that it should be meritorious, vnlesse it be granted, that begging is merito∣rious, which cannot be.

These reasons considered, I conclude, that Popish fasts, which stand in force among them at this day, are wicked and damnable, and consequently to be abolished, if it were

no more, but for the blasphemous ends, which they make of them.

And thus much touching this point of Fa∣sting, as also concerning the other Heades of Gods outward worship.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 17.