A century of sermons upon several remarkable subjects preached by the Right Reverend Father in God, John Hacket, late Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; published by Thomas Plume ...

THE FIFTH SERMON UPON Our Saviours Tentation. (Book 5)

MAT. iv. 2.

And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards an hungry.

LET it not trouble my Auditors, because I shall speak at this time of that Fast which our Saviour kept forty days; this is not the proper season, I confess; and if any man be ready to say, as one Philosopher in Laertius quipt another, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Why do you handle a matter that behoves us in a time that doth not behove it? My answer is, If I pickt out this for a single Text at this time, my oversight were unpardonable; but you know I take the parts of this Story in order, and must follow my subject as it hapneth to be discuss'd. Indeed our Church, which doth always follow the steps of pure Anti∣quity, hath appointed this portion of Gospel to be read yearly upon the first day of Lent. For the memory of any great thing is better preserved, when it is remembred so∣lemnly about the time that it hapned. So God said to the Children of Israel upon their coming out of Pharaohs bondage, Remember this day continually in your generations, Exod. xiv. 3.* 1.1 And upon a great memorandum thus the Lord said to Ezekiel, Son of man write the name of the day, of this same day, the King of Babylon set his face against Jerusa∣lem this same day, Ezek. xiv. 3. And many have cited Nazianzen when they commend a word spoken in season, Ex verbo illud potissimum quod est tempori convenientissimum; That which best suits the time is best spoken out of the Scripture. I subscribe to this wise direction; and I do not violate it now out of neglect or contempt, but upon apparent necessity; that I may leave no gaps in this Scripture, which I han∣dle about our Saviours conflict with Satan, but fill up the exposition of every verse as I proceed, with such meditations as I am able to afford.

I come therefore to the remainder of this verse, which is due unto you to be ex∣plained, and it consists in two things: The continuance of our Saviours fast, and the consequent. The continuance that he fasted forty days and forty nights; the conse∣quent, that he was afterwards an hungry, The one is a supernatural elevation, the other is a natural condition. In the first he shewed his divine vertue, in the second his humane infirmity. Upon the former the Devil feared he was the Son of God; up∣on the latter he perswaded himself he was no more than a mortal man. Whether is more strange, that having flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone, he should make his appetite forget to ask for sustenance so long? Or being the Son of God, who filleth every living thing with food, himself should hunger and want? In the first we ad∣mire him, Be thou exalted Lord in thine own strength; In the second we love him, be∣cause he was made poor that we might be made rich; in both we magnifie him. Attend to these particulars, and first that he had fasted forty days.

Forty days and forty nights, not now a day, and then a day, at several times, for that is easie and ordinary, but all at once without intermission. The Grammari∣ans have medled with this Point to confirm it by this rule,* 1.2 Jejunavit quadraginta dies non diebus, quia tempus continuum ferè quarto casu ponitur. Nouns of time expressed plu∣rally in the Accusative case do betoken such a distance of time continued, and not interrupted. Therefore Christ observed a continuation of fast from the first day to the fortieth; no man, I think would understand it otherwise; and if any were so captious St. Luke would not suffer him, for his words are, in those days he eat no∣thing, Luk. iv. 2. There is no efficacy in numbers said the wiser Philosophers, and ve∣ry truly; but some numbers are apt to enforce a reverent esteem towards them, by considering miraculous occurrencies which fell out in holy Scripture in such and such a number. So Tolet in a sort magnifies this number of forty days, that it is numerus mysteriis significandis accommodatus, a number coincident very often to the greatest mysteries, and noblest works of God. Forty days it rained upon the earth in the days of Noah, when God cleansed the great sins of the world by water. Caleb and Joshuah returned from searching of the Land of Canaan after forty days, Num. xiii. 26. Christ continued upon earth forty days among his Disciples after he was risen from the dead before he ascended into heaven. The Ninivites were forewarned that they should be consumed after forty days if they did not repent, and turn unto the Lord. Thus it came to pass, for what reason we cannot tell, but God knows why his Providence doth so exactly, and so often keep that measure of time in great signs and wonders; Non potest fortuitò fieri, quod tam saepe sit, says one,* 1.3 whom I never find superstitious in numbers. It falls out too often to be called contingent, and the oftener it falls out, the more to be attended.

Yet it is the safest conclusion, and hath least impertinency in it to say, that Mo∣ses fasted forty days at the institution of the Law, and Elias as long at the restau∣ration of the Law, so Christ kept even with them, and fasted just as long as they before the publication of the Gospel. As Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the Whale, so shall also the Son of man be in the lower parts of the earth, as if Christ had been studious, or rather would teach us to be studious to keep the pattern, as near as we can, of the good Generations that went before us. I would be sorry such ignorance should be in any here to make a question, whether Christ could have continued to fast not only for the space of so many days, but all his life, without the corruptible aliments of meats and drinks. But if he had pro∣duced his abstinence from all food longer than Moses and Elias for the space of many months, or many years, it would have been incredible to many, that he had been perfect man of the substance of his Mother, and Heresies would have had strong grounds for delusions, that he had not a fleshly, but a celestial body. How much better did his humility condescend to the likeness of his own Prophets? And be∣cause he came but in the shape of a servant, he would not exceed all example, or outgo the miraculous fast of his fellow-servants; he would have the world take knowledge of him to be a mighty Prophet, at least no ways inferiour to the best that ever lived, therefore he fasted forty days and forty nights like Moses and Elias. But in this the one is as divers from the other, and as much excels the other as can be imagined; Moses and Elias were preserved by Gods mighty arm, that their natu∣ral complexion might subsist without sustenance, but Christs vertue was in himself, and of himself, absolute, independent; they were kept safe by an external power, Christ by his own Godhead, and by no derivative vertue.

Such glorious miracles are rather to be adored with admiration than to be fol∣lowed with imperfect imitation. And because a large field of controversie lies be∣fore me in this Point touching the observation of our Lenten temperance for forty days, whether that ordinance were regulated by the example of Christ. I will lay down three several heads of opinions in their order, and bring you by degrees, I hope, to the truth of the controversie. 1. I will enquire whether Christ did intend to ordain a prefixt time of abstinence in the Church for forty days by his example. 2. If that be not so sound to hold, yet whether it were an Apostolical Tradition. 3. If that can neither be proved, yet whether it be a laudable Ecclesiastical Constitution. To the question of the first enquiry many of the greatest Doctors in the Church of Rome answer, that the observance of the Quadragesimal Fast, binds all Christians from our Saviours example. So Cardinal Bellarmine, Non verbis praescripsit hoc jejunium Christus, sed exemplo praecepit; we have no such ordinance in express words throughout all the Scripture to say, do thus, but it is an ordinance from Christs example. And Maldonat

the Jesuit, though Lent be not founded upon Christs Commandment, yet it is founded upon his Example, and that is enough to say it leans upon divine Autho∣rity. Beloved, it behoves not us to lay burdens upon mens shoulders which God himself hath not imposed. Whatsoever is commended to us for decorum and order sake, we do it for conscience sake; but whatsoever is no more but indifferent in it self, and is obtruded upon us, sub opinione necessitatis, as necessary and irrefraga∣ble from divine Authority, when it is not so, we reject it. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith God hath made you free,* 1.4 says St. Paul, Gal. v. 1. So St. Cyprian in the like case, opposing them that invented traditions of their own, and called them Gods Ordi∣nances, Periculosum est in divinis rebus ut quis cedat jure suo; It is of a dangerous conse∣quent to yield any thing to be a divine injunction which is not.

Therefore advising upon these rules, I give a flat Negative upon the first question, the Quadragesimal Fast is not necessarily to be observed from Christs example. The old rule of divinity is a sure one, Imitamur in moralibus, admiramur in miraculosis; in miraculous works we adore Christ with admiration, in Moral Institutions we will follow him with imitation. He anointed the eyes of the blind man with spittle and clay, contraries to the cure according to nature, and therefore we magnifie him; is it not a most Heterogeneal Mimick from hence to make a mixture of spittle and oyl to an Infant baptized, as if the Apostles had wanted ceremony to the Sacra∣ment, when they baptized with nothing but water? If any man love me he will keep my sayings, says our Lord; but he never added, If any man love me he will tie him∣self to my example where I never prescribed him to follow me. For my part that which hapned to St. Peter works exceedingly upon my understanding in this case; when he saw his Master walk upon the Sea as upon a solid Pavement, he desired he might do the like, and to let him know such miracles are to be lookt upon with the veneration of faith, he sunk into the waters, and was in peril of his life. To stop every cranny of objection that can be made, I read that the examples of Christs mighty works are sometimes pressed upon us to be drawn into an Analogi∣cal imitation, 1 Pet. ii. 21. Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps. How is that? Being reviled he reviled not again, when he suffered he threat∣ned not; and as he died for us, so we should offer our selves up to him as spiritual Sacrifices; and as he died and rose again the third day, so we should die unto sin, and rise again unto newness of life. From hence, says Maldonat, this is right our case; for we take not upon us to eat nothing for forty days as Christ did, but we keep a canonical temperance for forty days. Imitamur quia sequimur, quamvis non asse∣quimur; This is no more than the Analogical imitation. Those other imitations of some similitude have a precept in the Book of God, and this hath none: Therefore let them teach, that their imitation, being not Scripture proof, is but a volunta∣ry, and a diaphorous Constitution of the Church, and the Church of England will never be their adversary. For so it is frequent in the Writings of good Antiquitie, to alledge Christs example for their observance of the forty days fast, not according to the Roman Tenet at this day,* 1.5 that Christ established it necessarily in all places from that time forth unto the end of the world, but they alledged Christs example to countenance their voluntary and Ecclesiastical Sanctions.

What can be more direct on my side than St. Chrysostome, Homil. 47. in Mat. Christ did not say, as I fasted forty days, so do ye follow me in fasting, but learn of me because I am meek and lowly, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Surely, if he had given any particular order for fasting in the New Testament, the most proper time to have setled it had been when the people told him, the Disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast often, but thine do not: But then he utters no more but this in general, When tbe Bridegroom is taken from them they shall fast; Here is no direction for time or manner, all that is left free to the sound discretion and occasions of the Church. They do but dally with Scripture that collect from the forenamed words when the Bridegroom is taken from them they shall fast, therefore the sixth day of the week in every week must be a day of fasting and abstinence, because on the sixth day of the week the Bridegroom was taken from them, and died upon the Cross. What more insolid than this? For by collections from Irenaeus, and others, it is evident,* 1.6 that even the Roman Churches did ceremoniously keep the fast of Sat∣terday long before they observed a portional abstinence upon the sixth day of the week. But let me not make you lose the head of my argument by this Parenthesis, that Christ being demanded why his Disciples did not fast, he leaves an indefinite answer with them, The days will come, when the Bridegroom is taken from them that they

shall fast, but for allotting any particular time not a tittle of Commandment. Let this be added, that when the ancient Fathers call their quadragesimal Constitution an imitation of our Lords fast (there is no hurt in the Word, if it mean not that his example was a necessary pattern to be followed) I say, they alledge also for the convenient observing of that institution, how Moses and Elias fasted forty days in the old Law; and indeed, they might lay hold upon one as well as upon another, for Christ made his Fast even with theirs, to shew that the Gospel which he brought did not dissent from the Law and Prophets. But the illation is good in this wise, as the Jews were held to no necessary imitation of Moses and Elias, no more is there any necessary obligation to hold the Christians that they should pun∣ctually observe a portional abstinence, according to the time of forty days, that our Saviour fasted.

So I have put off the first conclusion with good confirmation, I think, on our part. Now I have to do with another sort, that hold our Lenten temperance to be an Apostolical tradition; hereby they burden the consciences of men that a partial fast of forty days is not merely derived unto us by Humane Laws, but by Apostoli∣cal Authority, a Sanction which came from men immediately inspired from God, and therefore to be strictly held as any other Dictate of the holy Gospel. And they that break Lent are condemned as Prevaricators of the divine Law. But these opi∣nionists are of two sorts, the one Sect far more severe and unreasonable than the other, who not only defend that a convenient abstinence is to be kept for forty days by Apostolical Authority, but that even the abstinence from the flesh of beasts for that time, and changing our diet into Fish and other Viands is by Apostolick command. But their reasons are far worse than their opinion, making a distinction as if one meat were more sanctified than another, whereas all things are alike un∣polluted to him that eats Gods Creatures with thanksgiving, and a resolved consci∣ence, and with temperance: But thus the Friers flash out, that the Seas were ne∣ver cursed for the sin of man, the earth was cursed for his sin, therefore the food of the Sea is better allotted for times of sorrow and repentance, than what? Than the flesh of the Cattel, yea, by this reason than the herbs of the Garden, yet the feeding upon herbs and roots was ever accounted the clearer abstinence. Such ano∣ther imagination is this, that Christ fed upon Fish after his Resurrection, so he did upon an honey Comb, and yet the Bees gather the fruits of their labours from the flowers of the field, and not from the weeds of the water. Such another rotten Argument is this, that all Flesh was destroyed in Gods anger in the Deluge, but Fishes were saved alive in the water. You need require from me no better confuta∣tion of this cause than the naming of these reasons, for who will not resolutely say that such frippery as this never came from Apostolical judgment. The Decretals of the Pope, (a work wherein I am sure the Church of Rome can have no wrong done it) but those Decretals attribute unto Telesphorus, that he was the first that com∣manded the Clergie for seven weeks before Easter to refrain from the food of flesh, this is but barely said, and not proved; but if it were proved, all the Apostles were dead before Telesphorus was born, therefore no way probable to be an Apostolick di∣rection. And indeed I find certain glances in the Fathers, that the Clergy did admit of this institution before the rest of the people did, which makes it more firm, that it was Abstinentia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam, an abstinence from some kind of food by a meer Ecclesiastical imposition to try their obedience. Surely they may name ten places out of antiquity before they alledge one to the purpose, that is for the com∣mutation of their ordinary diet from flesh into fish. Some quote Serapion in Socrates, that entertained a Guest hard before Easter, and being destituted of all provision except a piece of dried salted flesh, he set that before the stranger, who scrupulous∣ly refused it, and said he would not break Lent because he was a Christian; Sera∣pion answers, To the clean all things are clean, eat it because you are a Christian. From hence I collect, 1. That Lent was kept by a Canonical Ordinance two hun∣dred years after Christ in Serapions days. 2. That to abstain from flesh was the Civil Law of the time as it is with us, but so easily dispensable, that you may conclude, it was no Apostolical Ordinance. I will adjoyn one place of St. Austin most falsely quoted by Salmeron the Jesuite,* 1.7 1 Tim. iv. St. Paul says it was the Doctrine of Devils to for∣bid meats; Faustus the Manichean infers, then Moses in the Old Law wrote the Do∣ctrine of Devils: No says St. Austin, Quadragesima â vobis sine vino & carnibus, non superstitiose sed divinâ lege servatur. 1. You Manichaeans abstain both from wine and flesh in Lent. 2. You observe it as from a Divine Law, that was the error of the

Manicheans, to receive it as from divine Law, it was not the Tenet of the Ortho∣dox Christians; the Church of Rome it self will stand for me in this quotation, be∣cause no man is restrained from drinking of wine during that fast, no not by their Injunctions. So I have enough discovered their groundless opinion who take upon them to defend that abstinence from flesh in Lent is an Apostolical Constitu∣tion.

Therefore some state the matter in these words, that although the prohibition of some meats for forty days be corroberated by Ecclesiastical Law and Custom, yet a strict and severe abstinence for so long was delivered from the Apostles to the Church to be kept for ever. So Cardinal Bellarmine quotes St. Ambrose, but in those Writings whereof he is not certainly the Author. But St. Hierom is truly alledged I confess in saying it was the Apostles tradition; but the testimony of any Author, though a very reverend one, is little available, since no man said so before him from the Apostles age to his own,* 1.8 which is a long distance of four hundred years. A late Writer delivers his mind very roundly, that the Fathers took many things out of adulterated books, as Pastors Visions, Clemens Constitutions, the Gospel of Ni∣codemus, and such like, and called these Apostolical traditions. Indeed, nothing lets but the Fathers might be deceived by the Writings of Impostors. This answer I am sure deserves not to displease, that many things were called Apostolical Traditions which came not from any of the Twelve, but from the Scholars of the Apostles. So Tertullian calls Luke,* 1.9 not an Apostle, but an Apostolical man; and says Maldonat the Jesuite, those were called Apostolical men, Qui quamvis Christum non audivissent, au∣divissent Apostolos; Who, though they had not heard Christ, had heard his Apostles. Now it is a main odds whether the Apostles or their Scholars transfused such Tradi∣tions to the next generations,* 1.10 Intererit multum Davus ne loquatur an Herus. I will ba∣lance St. Hierom with Cassianus, and St. Austin, men of the same Age. Says Cassianus; while the Apostles lived upon the earth men were obedient to refrain from surfeit and luxury, all this while no times of fast were kept, because the whole life of Christians was addicted to Parsimony and moderation: But when these good men were gone to God, and temperance began to be forgotten, then was the fast of Lent bidden,* 1.11 and appointed to draw men to compunction and repentance. Cardinal Bel∣larmine hath no answer to this Authority, but Cassian knew not what he said. But St. Austin gave a studied and meditated answer to Casulanus, Quibus diebus jejunandum sit aut non jejunandum Apostolos non constituisse; There is a contradictory to St. Hierom. The Apostles did not constitute when we should fast, and when we should not. Alas what an impertinent labour it is to heap quotations that there was a Quadragesimal observance anciently in the Church, when they do not touch the question, whether it were by Apostolical Tradition.* 1.12 The Nicen Council doth appoint indeed that every year in all places two Provincial Synods should be held,* 1.13 one before the Quadragesima, that men might serve God the better when strifes were appeased. This is all, and Cyril of Hierusalem says a great deal less. Thou that loyterest all the year long, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wilt thou not bestow forty days time in Prayer? There is mention of Prayer, nothing of Fast, and not one word of a Fast derived from Apostolical Tradition.

And of all other Arguments this will never be satisfied. Lent was never kept uniformly in the former Ages, but after most different fashions almost in all the Churches of the world. In the beginning the term of forty days was so far from be∣ing usually kept, that it had no other name but Jejunium Paschale, the fast that went before Easter. Well, the name of Quadragesima grew on to be commonly received, but the Moon is not so variable as the several customs of that Fast, all Authors, who have wrote of this subject,* 1.14 toss that place of Irenaeus up and down; Some keep strictly but one days fast for the devout penance of that time, some two days, some more, some forty; and some when they fast account twelve hours unto the day, some four and twenty. Is this like to be an Apostolick Precept where there was no unity in the observation? Among those that would tie themselves to forty days observation, the greater part of old did exempt the Sundays. Dominico jejunium celebrare nefas esse ducimus, says Tertullian; It is a great crime to keep a fast upon the Lords day.* 1.15 So Hilary, to name no more, Constitutum est ne diebus Dominicis jejunetur; It is appointed there should no Fasts be held upon any of the Lords days. Now for an exact complement of the number of forty, others did borrow four days from the precedent week; and Gregory, six hundred years after Christ, was the first that setled the time how Lent should begin from Ashwednesday; they that continued their

fast all that week, and all the space till Easter day called it Quinquagesima, the Monks brought it to a Sexagesima, the Friers to a Septuagesima, almost forty days doubled, is it likely, if the Apostles had set things in order the bounds at all times should be thus removed? Shall I give you full measure in two things, lest this discourse; which is laborious to me, be tedious to you? First, The Disciples of our Lord did not design out the limits or manner of this Fast, for no body knew when to begin their Lent till the Council of Nice had setled that discord, because the exact time for the observation of Easter-day was uncertain till that Synod had concluded it. All the while the Church was unresolved of the one, without question it was unresolved of the other. Secondly, For the most part these two Constitutions are yoaked toge∣ther to keep a solemn abstinence in Lent, and that none should fast upon any day of the week between Easter and Pentecost: The same obedience was required to both, both accounted equally laudable, but as ceremonies of decency and no necessity: So alterable that the one is quite forgot, therefore I conclude the other can be no Apostolical Tradition.

You have heard me discover their error, that maintained the yearly observation of a Quadragesimal Fast to be necessarily grounded either upon Christs example, or upon Apostolical Tradition, now I will proceed to shew, that it is an Ecclesiastical Constitution, a lawful Constitution, and a laudible. There are many that speak very reverendly of this time of moderation in diet, and yet they will acknowledge that the Hereticks, who are named from Montanus, did first begin it; and that the Orthodox Church did follow them in that, lest they should seem to be outgone in the thing of good praise, and austerity by the enemies of the Gospel. This were no discredit to a good Institution, for to imitate the Heathen in that which is just and honest cannot choose but bring forth a good effect. We may borrow a Jewel from an Egyptian, but not an Idol. Howsoever the original is not well known, but this is well known, that the custom hath been transmitted to us from generation to ge∣neration. Both by the Greek and Latine Churches without contradiction for the space of 1300 years. And St. Austin said in his time, Ecclesiae consuetudo roboravit;* 1.16 The practice of the Church hath confirmed at what time of the year all men should unanimously keep this Fast. And let me tell you, we do not keep the same time that our Saviour did. The learnedst Calculators of time ascribe his Baptism to the sixth of January, immediately he began his fast which continued to the middle of February: For the most part we begin our Lent where he ended, but many times later; Ecclesiae consue∣tudo roboravit; that is the answer, the custom of the Church hath so confirmed it. So the observation hath descended to us from hand to hand, and our own Church treading in the steps of pure antiquity hath admitted it. Beloved, the days of the year, which are of especial observance, are either days of joy, or days of fasting and sorrow. The chief day of joy is that wherein Christ rose from the dead, and it appears that the Apostles appointed it for the solemnity of Christian meetings weekly, and called it the Lords day; but God left it indifferent to the Church to ap∣point themselves their own days of fasting, and mourning, and repentance, for we owe all our gladness to God, but we owe all our griefs and sorrow to our selves. And indeed Fasts are things to be dispensed with to sundry persons, and upon divers oc∣casions, therefore Almighty God left these things to the discretion of Authority in particular places.

A great tyranny is exercised in this matter, when the Roman Church, which is but one particular of the whole, will prescribe Laws of abstinence from meats to all other Churches. The lesser Churches indeed, for uniformity sake, were wont to have a respectful regard to the Ceremonies and Adiaphorous Rites which Imperial Cities; and Patriarchal Sees did follow. Not, I say, as if the richer and mightier Church did; or could bind the smaller to the prestation of her customs, but because in things honest, and without exception it was meet that the noblest places should be rather imitated than descend to imitate others. But O the advantages that Pride will take! courtesie in a while was turn'd to necessity, and the Roman Bishops did dare to challenge all Churches for Heretical that do not profess uniformity with them in all Fasts and Ceremonies. But all the Inke in Italy is not enough to blot out the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, consisting of six hundred Bishops, that the Churches of Con∣stantinople, because the Emperours kept their chief Palace there, should have, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equal Priviledges with the Church of Rome. And it is a Story known to all Di∣vines, when Monacha, St. Austins Mother, came to Millain, St. Ambrose kept Institutions of Fasts divers from the Church of Rome, and was never quarrelled for it. Look among

all the reasons of the Fathers, which perswaded the fast of forty days, I find not one that says itwas expedient to be kept, because so it seemed good to the Roman Pontifi∣cal Authority. The Institution depends upon a custom received from one to another in particular Churches.

A Constitution it is then propagated unto us from age to age. The next quaere is, whether it be a lawful Constitution? That is, whether the Church hath power to make Laws for appointed times and qualities of Fasting? That the Magistrate may bid a Fast according to the convenience of some seasonable occasion it finds no contradiction, unless, perhaps, some Anabaptistical fury doth oppose it. So did Ezra, so did Esther, so did the King of Nineveh, so says Joel, Proclaime a Fast, call a solemn assembly; and in all occasions of woe and calamity to forget our food for a time, and to intend nothing but spiritual exercise, I know no Christian Church in the world but doth practice it. But admit there be no extraordinary woe apparently like to fall upon us, either by Sword, Famine, or Pestilence, may not certain times and revolutions of the year challenge an abstinence and parsimony in our diet, if the Church will have it so, as Friday in every week, some Saints Eves in every Month, the Ember Fast, as we call it, every Quarter, the Lenten abstinence and prohibition of some meats every year? I have said enough before the Primitive Antiquity was very constant and regular in these observations de facto; now I will refer you to the proofs of holy Scripture, that it may be done de jure. Zach. vii. 5. There it appears that for the space of seventy years, while the Children of Israel were in Captivity, in all that space, as the year turn'd about, they did solemnize Fasts in the Fifth and in the Seventh Month, not by Gods Law, (we find no such Precept) but by their own Ecclesiastical Ordinances. When ye fasted in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even unto me? Their hypocrisie is blamed, because they did not humble themselves before the Lord as they ought, but the Ordinance was irreprovable.

The next stone that I will move is that Text, Luk. v. 33. The Disciples of John complain that they fasted, and the Pharisees fasted, but the Disciples of Christ did not fast. What Fast is this which they object unto him? For it can be no Statute of Gods Laws. Who would have kept it sooner than Christ and his Disciples? For he came to fulfil the Law, and not to break it. It could be no Fast of private de∣votion, for it had been most injurious to cavil with Christ for pretermitting their private Fasts; it follows therefore that they were Fasts publickly kept, enacted by the Synagogue, observed not only by the Pharisees, but by godly men, Johns Disci∣ples. Only Christ did dispense with his train, because the Children of the Bride∣chamber were not to mourn while the Bridegroom was with them, and to shew that he was above the Synagogue. Moreover, it is very strongly probable, that all the Jews were bound by their own rules, and by no other, to fast upon every Sab∣bath until the sixth hour of the day Josephus, their own Historian, testifies so much; the Gentiles, among whom they lived, did deride them for it; and the Scripture gives us some light for it, Neh. viii. 3. The ears of all the people were attentive to the Law from morning until noon-day, and at the twelfth verse, they were dismissed, and went to meat.* 1.17 But our judicious Hooker argues very learnedly upon Mat. xii. 1. Christ walking through the fields the Disciples pluckt the Ears of Corn: The Pha∣risees challenge them for doing that which was not lawful to be done on the Sabbath day. The bodily labour to rub the Corn was no such great trespass that it should offend them; wherefore nothing could displease them but the breaking of the Fast before the sixth hour; and our Saviours answer doth apologize not for their bodily labour, not for making bold with another mans Corn, (it was no theft, for the detriment was not valuable) but he defends them that they satisfied their hunger by the example of David, when he eat the holy bread. And thus the Scripture ap∣proves the Doctrine which I teach, that it is lawful for the Supreme Magistrate of the Church to proclaime observations, both for convenient seasons, and for ordina∣ry times of fasting. I find indeed that one, Aerius by name, cried out for Christian liberty, and pretended that Canonical Fasts were unjust thraldom; but I find that the Church remitted none of her Discipline for all his clamour, and he was counted but an Heretick for his labour.

But is it lawful not only to ordain a time of abstinence, but also during that space to turn our ordinary food into another species and quality? It is. For that you may see what power the Church hath, the first Canon that ever the Apostles made in the face of a publick Council was an ordination to inhibit the Brethren

from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from things strangled. A temporary Canon it was to last for the space, while the Jews took offence at the Gentiles converted unto the Faith, but after the scandal was taken away the force of the Canon ceased, witness one Text for all, 1 Cor. viii. 8. for in all appearance the worst of those meats forbidden was that which was offered to Idols; yet St. Paul, when he wrote that Epistle, says, it was lawful for a man to eat that meat offered to an Idol, so he did not eat it with the conscience of an Idol. Well then, the Church did frame an injuncti∣on to make all men refrain from certain meats for a time. As for this exception against some kind of diet for forty days, which is called the quality of Fasting, to say the troth, the conscionable Writers of the Church of Rome will confess it is no∣thing less than a Fast properly taken. Be it so that Flesh yields the most copious nourishment, yet the greater sort of men are better pleased with the delicacies of Fish, choice of Wines, suckets, and Electuaries; it can be no Fast to replenish a mans self with these, not only for necessity, but even to flatter his Palate, and to give his appetite satiety, therefore even these things, according to the intent of the Church, should be taken with greater parsimony and abstinence than we do at other times. And then I will shew, it was impossible for the Church to take better care for the avoidance of gluttony than to appoint order for the quality of diet; for no proportion can be set down in a general form and direction for the special quantity what every man should take for the space of forty days; for a little pit∣tance is a great meal to some queasie stomachs, and a great allowance again would be too little to keep others in health, who are of strong and sudden concoction. Consider this reason, and it will satisfie you for what cause your diet is moderated for forty days in the quality of our meat, and not in the quantity. Daniel fasted but half a Lent, but three weeks, and he inhibited himself for that space not to taste of Flesh or Wine: In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks, I eat no pleasant bread, neither came Flesh or Wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint my self at all till three whole weeks were fulfilled, Dan. x. 2. Howsoever, to close this Point, obedience single by it self is better than fasting; for fasting is re∣duced to the vertue of temperance, obedience to the vertue of justice, giving ho∣nour to whom honour belongeth, and of all the cardinal vertues Justice is the fairest, and the principal.

A lawful Constitution I have proved it, but because many things are lawful which are not expedient, it remains to be sifted, and nothing remains but it, whe∣ther it be a laudable appointment. Certainly, it is laudable in a very great de∣gree, both to rectifie our appetite in the concupiscible, and in the irascible part: In the concupiscible, to abate our inclination toward the pleasure of our Palate, and make us abstinent; In the irascible, to curb our lawless stubbornness, and make us obedient. Seneca, an Heathen, did perceive there was some defect in their Government, that the people were not prohibited some kind of food for a time, to make them know their subjection to the Magistrate, Nullis animalibus nisi ex fastidio pax est, says he. The Creatures can never be at rest and quiet any time of the year, when the Laws will have it so, but when we loath them; and we aim at temperance by our own palate and stomach, not by the Law of the Magistrate. Remember how directly you tread in the steps of Adam, and follow the first sin that ever he committed, if you set more by the pleasure of your Palate than by the du∣ty of obedience. St. Austin conceived this benefit would redound by that partial abstinence, Qui ista vitamus quae aliquando licent, imprimis peccata fugimus quae omnino non licent; We that for a while deny our selves those things which are lawful,* 1.18 will be the better prepared to shun iniquity, which is altogether unlawful. I omit one thing, (for in this copious subject I must make an Epitome, not a full Treatise) I omit, I say, the enumeration of all Political Emoluments, those are in every mans tongue and knowledge, to maintain Fishing, to enrich the imployment of Mariners, to inure us to hardness in the times of peace, if Wars should exercise us abroad, or at home, to spare every young thing in the Spring of the year, and to preserve the multiplication of the beasts of the field, these things are common∣ly dictated from the bar of the Civil Governour: But will you know the spiritual advantages? Why, we appease Gods wrath by humiliation, and dejecting our selves for the sins of the whole year; which we committed before. It is a special time destined to sweep away the filth of the whole house; for as in Moses Law, Lev. xvi. 30. All the people once a year did afflict themselves for expiation of their common sins, so it is good to have a publick time allotted, to deprecate the Divine

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Wrath, that it may not fall upon the whole Nation. Again, all the Writers of all Ages cannot be deceived; and all confess with one mouth, that a moderati∣on of diet, especially continued for some considerable time of temperance, must needs abate the violence of voluptuousness and luxury. And because we see it in the examples of Peter, and Daniel, and many more in Scripture, that Fasting doth elevate the mind, and make it more capable of spiritual thoughts, therefore it is well ordained, that the most notable Fast in the year should go before the great An∣niversary Communion of Easter. I know some will say, divers of the Reformed Churches have disused this ceremony, to profess an abstinence in the quality of their meats for forty days. They can best answer for themselves, and do answer, that their people, if they retained that use, would be seduced with Superstition: But for our parts we have more cause to fear a pound of Gluttony than a dram of Su∣perstition; and more reason they should conform to us than we to them, since some of their own do ingenuously confess of our Divines, that we are Purioris antiquita∣tis retentissimi; most retentive of purer antiquity. In a word, there is no necessity by Gods Word to keep a Lent of forty days, therefore those Churches are not con∣demnable: But because the use hath been propagated to us in so many Ages, both in the Greek and Latine Churches, I presume to say that our custom is more justifiable, and more laudable.

One thing for the last relish, the Quadragesimal Fast is grounded upon long custom of time, upon Ecclesiastical Constitution, and Political Confirmation, therefore it is not like one of the arch Precepts of the Law fac, & vives, do this, and live; man was made for those vertues of Faith and Charity, to which Gods Laws do im∣mutably bind him, but the Lent was made for man, and not man for it. The Liber∣tine is too scandalous that tusheth altogether at this Ordinance; but they that ter∣rifie weak consciences, that do not punctually observed it at all times, are too rigo∣rous, that I may not say too Pharisaical, who lay such heavy burdens upon mens shoulders under pain of damnation. The Laws of the King which belong to the especial good of the Kingdom, or for advancement of piety, cannot be broken without manifest incurring of a great offence before God; but the Laws of Fasts con∣cern not the main substance of Religion, or the necessary welfare of the Common∣wealth, therefore, according to the indulgence of the Supreme Magistrate, it may well be thought, that they are not rigorously to be understood, but civilly, that is, we are to give heed unto them, that we do not break them with open contempt or scandal, or out of the humour of a Libertine, or any such neglect, for then it is sin unto thee. But where such food cannot sufficiently be supplied, or if infirmity grow upon us, or where some honest or reasonable cause shall be offered, neither contempt being in our hearts, nor scandal given by our neglect, they that do con∣trary are not held neglecters of their duty, or contemners of the Magistrate. As upon Feast-days we dispense with mens necessities for bodily labour, so upon Fasts respect is had to our weakness, lest we should suffer harm in doing good.

Thus much hath been spoken upon the continuance of Christs Fast forty days and forty nights, I will be brief in the consequent, He was afterwards an hungry. The Devil is exceeding subtil, and works much upon advantage; no greater ad∣vantage for his tentations than penury and necessity: Yet Christ would hunger, when he was to be tempted, as who should say, I am in that plunge, which the Devil wisheth, and yet let him do his worst. I know not how Satan came by the know∣ledge that he was an hungry, unless Christ discovered himself by searching for food, and making enquiry where it might be expected, and finding none. This is manifest, his appetite was destitute, and in some distress; all the time of the forty days going before he was sustained by the divine vertue that he should not hunger, afterwards he suffered nature to have its course. This only may be thought a little strange, that after Moses and Elias had ended their fast of forty days, we do not read in Scripture that they were an hungry; why should the Holy Ghost leave it writ∣ten, that there was more infirmity in Christ than there was in them? Because no more is spoken of Moses and Elias, than to shew how the divine vertue did manifest it self upon them; but our Saviour did exhibite a proof that the vertue of God was in him, and the infirmity of man.

Only remember that Christ had satiety and hunger in his own power to manifest them when he pleased; Qui Dominus est totius terrae, Dominus est naturae suae, says St. Austin; He that was Lord of the whole Earth, know it, and mistrust it not, he was Lord also of his own nature; it was in his power to lay down his life when he

pleased, therefore it must be in his power to hunger when he pleased. Hunger and thirst, pain and sorrow were as naturally in Christ as they are in us, but with two marks of difference: First, Christus non contraxit defectus naturae sed assumpsit; Christ took such defects upon him, he yielded to undergo them, but we do merit and con∣tract them; to deserve infirmity, and to assume infirmity are two divers things. Secondly, Impotencies of nature do command us, we cannot command them. If we have watch'd and fasted any long time, sleep and meat are tribute which na∣ture calls for, and must be paid; but our Saviour had them under subjection quan∣tum, quando, quomodo, to take them not out of necessity, but voluntarily, in no measure but when he pleased, at no time but when he thought fit, in all respects according to his own wisdom and appointment. Now to that God who was made poor that we might be made rich, that was made exceeding sorrowful that we might rejoyce, that did hunger and thirst that we might be filled with good things, be Praise and Honour. AMEN.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In Festo Pentecost.
• * 1.2

  Bo••ae Annot.
• * 1.3

  Maldon. in hunc locum.
• * 1.4

  Lib. de ho∣ret. bapt.
• * 1.5

  Videl. in Ep. ad Phil. apud Ignat.
• * 1.6

  Videl. loc. Predicto.
• * 1.7

  Lib. 30. con∣tra Faust. cap. 3.
• * 1.8

  Videl. loco Praedict.
• * 1.9

  Praefat. in Commen. Lucae.
• * 1.10

  Collat. 21. c. 30.
• * 1.11

  Epist. 86.
• * 1.12

  Canon. 5.
• * 1.13

  Catech. 1.
• * 1.14

  Euseb. lib. 5.
• * 1.15

  De Coron. milit. Praefat. i •• Psal.
• * 1.16

  Ep. 11••••
• * 1.17

  Eccles. Polit. lib. 5. com. 72
• * 1.18

  Serm. de Temp. 64.