The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 5

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 7 · Controversy 5

p. 505Fifth Controverſie, OF THE SEVENH BOOK. OF FASTING.

CHAP. I. That in the queſtion of Faſting, and of Lent M. du Perron doth not touch the ſtate of the queſtion, but diſcourſeth about things not controverted.

CArdinal du Perron in the eighteenth chapter of the firſt book ſpeaks ſuperficially of Faſting and of Lent, but treats that queſtion more at large in the ſecond Obſervation in the eighth chapter.Pag. 655.

All his diſcourſe is imployed, not to anſwer us, but to ſet forth his thoughts and conceits and to diſguiſe the antient cuſtoms.

Then to comprehend the nature of that queſtion, our difference is not, whether faſting be good, or whether it be a commendable cuſtom to faſt before Eaſter. Would to God that we were condemned to faſt all the year, and never to eat fleſh, upon condition that we were agreed about the reſt. One cannot prepare himſelf to ſuch a holy duty as receiving the Lords Supper with too much humility. Yea, I hold that Aetius did evil to condemn faſting before Eaſter, in a time when faſting was not taken for a payment and ſatisfaction to God, and was not impoſed by a ſingle ill-grounded authority. That medling fellow ought not to have troubled the Church about a queſtion of meats, and oppoſed the cuſtom univerſally received, which was then obſerved without pride, without tyranny, and without opinion of merit. For as the Apoſtle ſaith,(a)(a)Rom. 14.17.Rom 14:17 The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteouſneſs, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghoſt. And(b)(b)Rom. 14.2. & 3.Rom 14:2Rom 14:3 one believeth that p. 506he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs; Let not him that eateth deſpiſe him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth. Where it is to be noted, that the Apoſtle calleth the abſtinence of him that tyeth himſelf to eat nothing but herbs a weakneſs, becauſe it is a ſcruple ariſing out of weakneſs of faith, and ſhortneſs of inſtruction. Whereas in our days uſing great abſtinence from certain meats, is held to be ſtrength, and a great perfection. And although diſtinction of meats was aboliſht by the Goſpel, as we are taught, 1 Cor. 10.25. Whatſoever is ſold in the ſhambles, that eat, asking no queſtion, for conſcience ſake; For the earth is the Lords, and the fulneſs thereof: If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feaſt, and ye be diſpoſed to go, whatſoever is ſet before you eat, asking no queſtion for conſcience ſake. Yet the ſame Apoſtle chargeth us to uſe that liberty to edification, which Chriſt hath purchaſed for us: And as he will not have us to enſlave our liberty to the tyranny of thoſe that would lay a yoke upon our conſciences, ſo he will have us to bear with them that are weak, and ill inſtructed, and rather to comply with them, then to give them offence with our meat.

Alſo we are very far from condemning faſting which is ſo many times(c)(c)Acts 10.30. Acts 13.3. Luke 2.37.Acts 10:30Acts 13:3Luke 2:37 recommended in Scripture, and payred with prayer, that as prayer ſanctifieth the faſt, ſo the faſt may add heat unto prayer, and bring down the inſolency of the fleſh. Sobriety is the preſerver of chaſtity, a bridle unto luſt, a help to vigilance. This life being the eve of the great and eternal reſt, it muſt be (as much as we can) a continual faſt. So if any feeling that the uſe of wine, or fleſh, or ſawces, or ſweet meats, ſtirs up his blood, and kindleth his concupiſcence, abſtains from theſe things without ſcruple, without either impoſing it as a Law upon others, or thinking himſelf obliged to it by a Law, it were an unjuſt part to check him for it. Our quarrel with the Roman Church about faſting is not of that nature. But we complain, 1. That ſhe hath changed faſting into a diſtinction of meats; 2. That(d)(d)Bellar. l. 2. de bonis operibus cap. 13. Jejunium valet ad ſatisfaciendum pro p…ccatis, & ad merendum pro aeternis. ſhe puts faſting among merits and ſatisfactions, making of an exerciſe of humility an occaſion of pride. For we are ſo far from pretending to merit eternal life by faſting, that on the contrary by faſting we declare our ſelves unworthy of this corporal life. 3. That the Pope hath taken this occaſion to raiſe his Empire, to ſet a rule to the markets, to the kitchens, to the bellies; reſerving to himſelf the authority to diſpenſe, having to that effect multiplyed faſting dayes to that number, that they are well nigh half the year, taking upon him to give Laws to the univerſal Church, whereas in old times Biſhops gave orders every one in his Dioceſs without any dependance upon the Prelat of Rome. 4. That of ſins againſt Gods Law, as fornication, ſtealing, and lying, the leaſt Prieſts can give the abſolution; But eating a bit of fleſh in the Holy Week, is a ſin for which a man is ſent to the Biſhop, or to the Penitentiary. 5. That in the Roman Church he that hath eaten his belly full of fiſh, is accounted to have faſted, but he that for want of other meat, hath eaten a little fleſh, is thought to have violated the faſt. 6. That in the Roman Church one man faſteth for another, as if a Judge ought to releaſe a fellon, becauſe his brother hath not dined. 7.(e)(e)Can. Presbyter Diſt. 82. Secundum feriam unum Pſalterium canendo, aut unum denarium pauperibus dando, ſi opus eſt, redimere poterit Et Gloſſa ibid. Denarium poteſt dare, ut ſe redimat à jejunio. Ergo multo fortius per alterius jejunium poterit liberari. That the penances of faſting impoſed upon a ſinner are redeemed with money, and that corporal pains are changed into pecuniary. 8. That this opens a wide gate unto traffick. So far that the book called the Taxation of the Apoſtolical Chancery puts a certain price to the Letters of ſuch diſpenſations in theſe words,(f)(f)Quod Laicus non teneatur jejunare diebus quibus per Eccleſiam aſtrictus exiſtit, & quod poſſit, &c. Caſeo. Groſ. 20. That a Lay-man may not be obliged to faſt upon the dayes to which he is bound by the Church, and may eat cheeſe, the letter coſts twenty groats.

Theſe are the cauſes, that have obliged us to reject the faſts of the Roman Church, and to ſhut up that gate to Satan, having known by experience how many abuſes have got into the Church by that way. Knowing alſo that Chriſt hath not preſcribed certain faſting dayes, we faſt according to neceſſity and occaſion, and exhort Gods people unto ſobriety. Of all theſe wherein conſiſteth the ſubſtance of the error, the Cardinal ſpeaks not a word, and dareth not ſtir that ſink.

p. 507CHAP. 2. That as ſobriety and faſting are recommended in the word of God, ſo diſtinction of meats is condemned by the ſame.

AMong the Antient Chriſtians we find examples of very auſtere faſting,(a)(a)Lucianus in Philopatride id exprobrat Chriſtianis. ſo far as to be ten, yea twenty dayes without any eating. But whether they faſted little or much, they did it out of a voluntary exerciſe, being not tyed to it by any Law. So ſpeaks Auſtin Epiſt. 86.(b)(b)Auguſt. ad Caſul. Epiſt. 86. Quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare & quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini vel Apoſtolorum in jejunio non definitur. I find it not determined by any command of the Lord or his Apoſtles upon what dayes we muſt not faſt, and upon what dayes we muſt. And Socrates in the fifth book chap. 22. ſpeaking of the diverſity of cuſtoms in ſeveral Churches in matter of faſting,(c)(c)foreign. Becauſe (ſaith he) no written precept about that is found, it appeareth that the Apoſtles left it free that every one may do that which is good, not out of fear, or out of neceſſity. And Tertullian in the ſecond book contra Pſychicos, or againſt the ſpiritual (ſo he calls the Orthodox) ſaith that they affirmed that(d)(d)Sic & Apoſtolos obſervaſſe nullū aliud imponentes jugum certorum & in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum. the Apoſtles had impoſed no yoke of certain dayes of faſting, which ought to be obſerved of all in common.

But as Scripture preſcribes no certain faſting dayes, ſo it expreſly forbids the diſtinction of meats. The Apoſtle St. Paul calls the prohibition of meats, a doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1. The ſpirit speaks expreſly that in the latter times ſome ſhall depart from the faith, giving heed to ſeducing Spirits and doctrines of Devils — Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abſtain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.

And that one may not ſay, that there the Apoſtle ſpeaks of thoſe only that eſteemed meats to be polluted and evil by their nature, he addeth that bodily exerciſe profiteth little. And Rom. 14.2. he calleth that man weak that eats herbs out of abſtinence. But he would rather have called him ungodly and injurious againſt God, if ſuch a man had believed that meats created by God were evil by their nature. The ſame Apoſtle Col. 2.20. condemneth thoſe that prohibited meats, ſaying Touch not, taſte not, handle not, out of humilty and exerciſe of mortification, for St. Paul addeth, Which doctrines have indeed a ſhew of wiſdom in will-worſhip and humility, and not ſparing of the body, not in any honour to the fulfilling of the fleſh. Such was the excuſe of the Montaniſts inventors of faſts, for ſo they ſpeak by the mouth of Tertullian their Advocate.(e)(e)Tertul. adv. Pſycheos Sp. S. praedamnans jam haereticos perpetuam abſtinentiam praecepturos ad deſtruenda & deſpicienda opera Creatoris. The Apoſtle condemneth thoſe that commanded to abſtain from meats. For the Holy Ghoſt by his foreſight condemneth thoſe hereticks before they were come, that ſhould command a perpetual abſtinence to deſtroy and deſpiſe the Creators works. Again,(f)(f)Abſtinentes ab eis quae non rejicimus ſed differimus. We abſtain from meats which we reject not, but we put off the uſe of them for a time. And in the ſame place(g)(g)Ita ſciebat quoſdam caſtigatores & interdictores victus incuſare qui ex faſtidio non qui ex officio abſtinerent. The Apoſtle would accuſe ſome correctors and forbidders of meats who abſtained from them out of contempt, not out of office or exerciſe. It is plain that thoſe hereticks ſpake as our Adverſaries do. As alſo did Euſtathius Biſhop of Sebaſtia, (h)(h)Conc. Gangr. Praefat. & Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 13. foreign.who being condemned by the Council of Gangra for ſuch obſervations, proteſted that he did not bring in theſe things out of pride, but out of a religious exerciſe, and according to God.

The ſame Apoſtle in the ſame chapter ver. 16 ſpeaks thus, Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in reſpect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath dayes. And 1 Cor. 10.27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feaſt, and ye be diſpoſed to go, whatſoever is ſet before you eat, asking no queſtion p. 508for conſcience ſake. Now it might eaſily happen that one of thoſe that believed not, inviting a Chriſtian a ſevenight or a fortnight before Eaſter ſhould ſet fleſh before him. And 1 Cor. 8.8. Meat commends us not unto God, for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if eat not are we the worſe.

It is true that in the fifteenth of Acts, the Apoſtles being aſſembled at Jeruſalem, for fear of offending the Jews newly converted, prohibited eating of blood, and ſtrangled things. Which order we ſhould be bound to obſerve to this day, but that the Apoſtle who writ the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians long after the Council of Jeruſalem, teacheth us, that this prohibition was taken off, ſaying, If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feaſt, whatſoever is ſet before you, eat, asking no queſtion for conſcience ſake. Which the Roman Church acknowledging hath left that cuſtom, and permits eating of blood and ſtrangled things, according to Auſtins counſel in chap. 13. of book 32. againſt Fauſtus the Manichean, although the moſt part of Chriſtan Churches(i)(i)Vid. Tertul. Apol. c 9. Conc. Gangr Can. 2. Conc. Trull. Can 7. Euſeb. lib. 5. hiſt. cap. 1. Sixtum Senenſem lib. 6. Annot. 173. for the ſpace of eight hundred years and above, kept that Law, and carefully abſtained from blood and ſtrangled things.

In vain the example of the Rechabites is alleadged, who abſtained from wine in obedience to the command of Jonadab their anceſtor, Jer. 35. For in the Roman Church neither the people, nor the Clergy abſtain from wine. If the example of the Rechabites muſt be followed, there muſt be neither building of houſes, nor dwelling in houſes. It was a prophetical warning whereby Jonadab dying, prepared his family for perſecution, which ſoon after came upon the land. Yet God diſpenſed them from that abſtinence, and took off that prohibition by his Prophet Jeremy.

CHAP. 3. Of the cuſtom of the Antient Church about diſtinction of meats.

THE firſt that brought in rigid faſting were the heretick Montaniſts, followers of Montanus, who called himſelf the Holy Ghoſt,(a)(a)Euſeb. Hiſt. lib. 5. cap. 18. foreign. Euſebius ſaith, that Montanus is he that made the Laws about faſting. For if that which Clemens Alexandrinus ſaith is true, that St. Matthew did eat nothing but ſeeds, and ſmall fruits, and herbs, that Apoſtle did ſo without any Law impoſed upon him, and for cauſes particular to himſelf.

Of that Sect was Tertullian, who writ about the year 200. of Chriſt. He made a book againſt the Orthodox Chriſtians, whom he calls in ſcorn foreign, that is ſpiritual. In that book in the firſt chapter he ſaith that the other Chriſtians accuſed the Montaniſts of too much faſting, and blamed them for faſting till the evening, and for abſtaining in their faſts from all moiſt things, as fleſh, and the moſt humid fruits,(b)(b)Tertul. in Pſych. cap. 1. Arguunt nos, quod jejunia propria cuſtodiamus, quod ſtationes plenumque in veſperam producamus, quod etiam Xerophagias obſervemus, ſiccantes cibum ab omni carne & omni jurulentia, & uvidioribus quibuſque pomis. which faſts were called foreign by the Montaniſts, which the Orthodox Chriſtians laughed at, ſaying that it was a new and affected name,(c)(c)Id. c. 2. Xerophagios quoque novum affectati officii nomen & proximum Ethnicae ſuperſtitioni quales caſtimoniae Apim & Iſidem & magnam matrem certorum eduliorum exceptione purificant. reliſhing of Pagan ſuperſtition; That the Egyptians that worſhipped the Ox Apis, and the Goddeſs Iſis, had the like abſtinences and diſtinctions of meats.

Ignatius more antient then Tertullian in his Epiſtle to Hieron the Deacon adviſeth him(d)(d)Vino & carnibus ne prorſus abſtineas, nec enim abominandae ſunt. not to abſtain from wine and fleſh, thereby ſhewing that ſome already laboured to introduce theſe obſervations into the Church.

But about ſix or ſevenſcore years after Tertullian, began the profeſſion of Monks in Syria and Aegypt, which was unknown before, and went beyond the Montaniſts in auſterity of faſting, ſo far that they would paſs many dayes together without any eating at all. Theſe were carefull obſervers of thoſe p. 509Xerophagies, that is, eating of dry meats, which the Ancient Chriſtians had derided.

At the ſame time, and in imitataion of thoſe Monks, faſts began to be more frequent; and Chriſtians to mortifie their fleſh, began to abſtain from wine and fleſh and all dainties upon faſting dayes. Yet the cuſtoms were very different. Chryſoſtome in the fourth Homily to the people of Antioch, upon image-breaking.(e)(e)foreign. There are ſome (ſaith he) that paſs two whole dayes without eating any thing at all; Some cutting off from their table, not only wine and oyle, but alſo all kinds of meats, paſs the whole Lent with bread and water only. And Socrates in the fifth book of his hiſtory chap. 22.(f)(f)foreign, &c. Chriſtians have not the ſame cuſtoms of abſtinence of meats, for ſome abſtain altogether from things that had life, Others of all living creatures eat nothing but fiſhes; Some unto fiſhes add fouls, &c. Others abſtain from fruits of trees, and from eggs; Some live with dry bread only, others uſe none at all. Some will faſt nine hours, and after feed upon ſuch meat as they can get, without diſtinction. The cuſtoms in that point are very different. And becauſe we find nothing written about that by the Antients, I think that the Apoſtles have left it to every mans diſcretion. That diverſity of cuſtom ſheweth that in thoſe dayes the Pope of Rome did not rule the Univerſal Church.

This ſheweth alſo that faſts were free, and that every one faſted either according to his ſtrength, or according to his will, not by any neceſſary rule impoſed upon the Church.

Tertullian in the forealleadged place diſputing againſt ſound doctrine, ſaith, that the Adverſaries (that is, true Chriſtians) ſaid, that(g)(g)Lex & Prophetae uſque ad Johannem. Itaque de caetero indifferenter jejunandum ex arbitrio, non ex imperi novae diſciplinae, pro temporibus uniuſcujuſque. Sic Apoſtlos obſervaſſe, &c. The Law and the Prophets were untill John, and that after that we muſt faſt indifferently, not by the authority of any new diſcipline, but according to the times and occaſions of every one. That the Apoſtles did ſo practiſe it, having not impoſed the yoke of certain faſt dayes, &c.(h)(h)Apoſtolo deteſtatore eorum qui ſicut nubere prohibeant ita jubeant cibis abſtinere. That as the Apoſtle deteſteth thoſe that hinder marriage, ſo he deteſteth thoſe that command abſtinence from meats, &c. That the Lord ſaid, that which entreth in at the mouth defileth not man, but that which goeth out, &c. That the Apoſtle ſaid, Meat make us not acceptable unto God, that neither if we eat, are we the better, neither if we eat not, are we the worſe. Thus as the true Chriſtians of thoſe dayes uſed againſt hereticks the ſame reaſons that we uſe againſt the Roman Church, ſo the anſwer of thoſe hereticks ſpeaking by the mouth of Tertullian, is the ſame as that of our Adverſaries. That the Apoſtle condemneth thoſe hereticks that hold meats to be polluted and evil by their nature, not thoſe that abſtain out of exerciſe to mortifie and humble their fleſh. By the ſame Tertullian in the third chapter of the ſame book it appears,(i)(i)Bene autem quod Epiſcopi univerſae plebi mandare jejunia aſſolent, &c. ex aliqua ſolicitudinis Eccleſiaſticae cauſa. that in the orthodox Church Biſhops preſcribed faſts, according to the occaſions and extraordinary neceſſities of the Church.

About a hundred and ten years after Tertullian, the Council of Ancyra being informed that ſome Clarks out of voluntary devotion abſtained from fleſh, made this Canon which is the fourteenth.(k)(k)foreign. It ſeemeth us good that the Clarks Prieſts and Deacons that abſtain from fleſh ſhould eat of it. After that if they will abſtain from it, let them abſtain. This ſhews that the Greek Churches had no Eccleſiaſtical laws as yet to abſtain from fleſh. But becauſe it was doubted whether thoſe that abſtained from it, did it out of ſcruple or only out of exerciſe, the Council commands them to eat fleſh once or twice, to ſhew that they held not the uſe of fleſh to be evil of its nature.

The like rules are found in the Aſceticks of Baſil, which are rules given neither to the Clergy nor to the people, but to certain Hermites of the deſarts of Pontus and Cappadocia whom Baſil exerciſed with a hard abſtinence. He tells p. 510them.(l)(l)Definitionum latiorum Interrogat. 18. foreign. All meats muſt be eaten as occaſions happen, as much as it ſufficeth to ſhew them that look upon us, that unto the pure all things are pure, and that every creature of God is good, and none of them is to be rejected. And in the nineteenth interrogation, It is impoſſible to tye all perſons to the ſame rules, conſidering the diverſity of natures, and the complexion of the bodies. And in his Asketical Conſtitutions chap. 25. he commands his Askets or Diſciples(m)(m)foreign. not to make conſcience to eat bread dipt in fleſh-broth, which the Benedictin Fryars in our dayes would hold to be a great ſin. But in thoſe dayes the rigid rules of abſtinence were only for the Anachorets and Askets, that is, for Hermites and Exerciſers of auſterity. But as for the people, as it would have been unbeſeeming not to faſt at all, ſo of the publick faſts every one obſerved as much as he pleaſed, and there was no Law that obliged the people neceſſarily, as it will be ſeen more evidently by the following proofs, eſpecially when we come to ſpeak of Lent.

Theodoret in the laſt chapter of divine maximes, where he treats of abſtinence ſpeaks thus: The Church embraceth abſtinence of wine and fleſh, and other abſtinences, not as hereticks do, for they command abſtinence of thoſe things as of abominable things. But (n)(n)Theod. foreign Cap. foreign.the Church hath made no Laws about that, and forbiddeth not the uſe of theſe things. For this cauſe ſome enjoy lawfull pleaſures without fear, others abſtain from them. And none of the wiſe condemneth him that eateth, for both the abſtinence and the uſe lye in the liberty of mens will. That place ſheweth evidently that many Chriſtians abſtained from wine and fleſh, out of a voluntary exerciſe; being not bound to it by any Law. The like things he ſaith upon Rom. 14.

Auſtin likewiſe in the thirty third chapter of the firſt book of the manners of the Catholick Church, ſpeaking of the faſts of Monks, whoſe abſtinences were far more ſtrict and auſtere then thoſe of the common people and Clergy, ſaith nevertheleſs,(o)(o)Atque inter haec nemo urgetur in aſpera quae ferre non poteſt. Nulli quod recuſat imponitur, nec in eo condemnatur à caereris, quod in eis imitandis ſe fatetur invalidum, &c. Meminerunt omnia munda mundis. None is urged to auſterities which he cannot bear. None hath a burden laid upon him which he cannot carry, or is condemned by others, becauſe he c nfeſſeth himſelf too weak to follow them; for they remember that to the clean all things are clean.

Caſſianus in book 5. chap. 5. ſpeaking of the faſts of the Monks of the wilderneſs.(p)(p)Super jejuniorum modo haud poteſt facile uniformis regula cuſtodiri, Quia nec robur unum cunctis corporibus ineft, nec ſicut virtutes caeterae animi ſolius vigore parantur. It is not eaſie (ſaith he) to keep an uniform rule about the meaſure of faſting; Becauſe all have not the ſame ſtrength of body, and one cannot attain to theſe faſts by the vigour of the mind only, as to other vertues. And in the twenty firſt Collation chap. 13. We read not that any were condemned only for meat, And in the fourteenth chapter he calls the uſe of meats an indifferent thing.

Hence I infer, that if the Monks of the wilderneſs, whoſe faſts were a hundred times more auſtere, yet were not conſtrained, but had the liberty either to faſt or not to faſt, how much ought the peoples liberty to have been greater? And truly whoſoever ſhall carefully read the antient penitential Canons ſhall not find any Canon or rule that preſcribe any pennance to him that hath eaten fleſh upon a faſting day. This will be more clearly ſeen in the chapter where we ſhall treat of Lent. Neither ſhall it be found in all Antiquity, that any ever came to the Biſhop of Rome, or to any other Biſhop, to get a permiſſion or diſpenſation to eat fleſh on faſting dayes.

Euſebius in the third chapter of the fifth book of his hiſtory relates, that one Alcibiades mortified himſelf with faſting, living with bread and water. But (ſaith Euſebius) it was revealed to Attalas [ſince] a Martyr, that Alcibiades did ill to abſtain from Gods creatures, and thereby to ſcandalize others: (q)(q)foreign.Alcibiades believed him, and ſince did eat indifferently of all [meats] and gave God thanks.

p. 511Sozomenus in the firſt book chap. 11. ſaith, that a ſtranger being come to Spiridion on a faſting day, he bad his daughter to ſerve before that ſtranger a piece of Pork, which he had in ſtore; and that the ſtranger (bred doubtleſs in ſome ſuperſtitious Church) made a ſcruple to eat it, ſaying that he durſt not eat it becauſe he was a Chriſtian. Then Spiridion told him, But for that very reaſon thou muſt eat it, becauſe God ſaith, To the pure all things are pure. He ſaid not to him, Eat of it, for there is nothing elſe in the houſe, but he alleadged to him the word of God, which is alwayes of the like vigour, whether there was other meat, or no other meat in the houſe. And himſelf, who had purpoſed before not to eat all that day, did eat fleſh with that ſtranger, to take from him all ſcruple.

The ſame Sozomenus in the third book chap. 13. And Nicephorus in the ninth book chap. 14. ſpeaks of one Pachomius, to whom an Angel brought a writing, preſcribing among other Laws, to eat, drink, labour, faſt, or not faſt, as every one ſhould like beſt, without binding himſelf to any neceſſity.

Proſper in the ſecond book of contemplative life, chap. 22.(r)(r)Sic abſtinere vel jejunare debemus, ut nos non jejunandi vel abſtinendi neceſſitati ſubdamus, ne jam non devoti ſed inviti rem voluntariam faciamus. Si enim quoſlibet …dvenientes jejunio intermiſſo reſicio, non ſolvo jejunium ſed impleo charitatis officium. We ought ſo to abſtain or faſt, that we ſubject not our ſelves to the neceſſity of faſting or abſtaining; leſt that we do not out of devotion, but out of conſtraint, a thing that ought to be voluntary. For if I intermit my faſt to entertain all that come to me, I violate not my faſt, but I do an office of charity.

Hierom is the moſt ſevere in this point, according to his cuſtom, to run alwayes to extreams, and to be hyperbolical both in counſels and words. That Father in the ſecond book againſt Jovinian ſets forth all his eloquence to make eating of fleſh odious, and to diſſuade Chriſtians from it. He ſaith that(ſ)(ſ)Poſſumus dicere beſtias, piſces, oves, non ad eſum ſed ad medicinam creatas. the beaſts which are commonly eaten, were created not for the uſe of food, but for the uſe of Phyſick. That fleſh may be fit meat for ſea-men or wreſtlers that knock one another down with their fiſts, or for mine-diggers; whereas Chriſtian Religion doth not teach men to be diggers or wreſtlers, but to follow wiſdom and conſecrate themſelves unto God. And a little after,(t)(t)Si vis perfectus eſſe, bonum eſt vinum non bibere, & carnem non manducare. If thou wilt be perfect, it is good not to drink wine, and not to eat fleſh. And to them that eat fleſh, he applyeth theſe words of prophane men related by St. James, Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we ſhall dye. And in the Epiſtle to Salvina, We know that the Apoſtle ſaid, that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected, being taken with thanksgiving: (u)(u)Sed idem loquitur bonum eſt vinum non bibere & carnem non manducare.But the ſame Apoſtle ſaith alſo, It is good not to drink wine, and not to eat fleſh. And a little after,**Comedant carnes quae carni ſerviunt, quarum fervor diſpumat in coitum. Let thoſe women eat fleſh, that ſerve the fleſh, whoſe heat is froathing for the works of the fleſh, &c.

But St. Paul ſaith not abſolutely, that it is good neither to drink wine, nor to eat fleſh, as Hierom makes him ſay, but, It is good neither to eat fleſh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother ſtumbleth, or is made weak, Rom. 14.21. He will have us rather to abſtain from fleſh and from wine then to give ſcandal to a weak brother. He chuſeth rather that we ſhould abſtain from lawfull things then to trouble a weak conſcience for meat, which of its nature is indifferent. Thomas (x)(x)Thomas in cap. 14. ad Rom. ver. 21. Hoc intendit Apoſtolus dicere, quod bonum eſt his non uti cum ſcandalo proximorum, quod apparet ex hoc quod ſubditur.the Prince of the School expounds it ſo. The Apoſtle means that it is good not to uſe theſe things with ſcandal of our neighbours, and ſo much appears by that which follows.

Note alſo that Hierom holds, that to be perfect one muſt drink no wine, and eat no fleſh, contradicting the Apoſtle who calls thoſe men ſtrong, that eat all indifferently, and thoſe weak and infirm that out of abſtinence ſtint their ſtomack to herbs only; and conſidering not that the ſame Apoſtle commands his Diſciple Timothy to drink wine becauſe of the weakneſs of his ſtomack. Caſſian tells us that by ſuch abſtinences many were led into temptation. Among others he ſpeaks(y)(y)Caſſian. Collat. 1. chap. 21. of Abbot John, who having faſted two dayes together, ſaw the p. 512Devil preſenting himſelf to him in the ſhape of a little black Moor-boy, who told him, It was by my counſell that thou didſt undertake this faſt.

Superſtition hath no end. This ſickneſs growing in the Church of Rome came to this, that about the year of the Lord 730. Pope Gregory the ſecond and his ſucceſſor Zachary declared ſome meats unclean, and of a polluted nature. That Gregory in an Epiſtle to Boniface Biſhop in Germany (z)(z)Agreſtem caballum aliquantos adjunriſti comedere, pleroſque & domeſticum. Hoc nequaquam fieri, ſanctiſſime frater, ſinas, &c. Immundum enim eſt atque execrabile.prohibits eating of horſes, both wild and homebred. For (ſaith he) that is unclean and execrable. And Zachary (a)(a)Zachar. Epiſt. ad Bonifac. Inprimis de volatilibus & graculis, & corniculis, & ciconiis, quae omnino cavendae ſunt ab uſu Chriſtianorum, & fibri atque lepores, & equi ſylvatici multo amplius cavendi.forbids eating Jays, Crows, Otters, Storks, Hares, and wild horſes.

In the nineteenth book of the Decrees and Canons collected by Burchard th…ſe Canons are found.(b)(b)Comediſti aves quas oppreſſeret accipiter, & non prius eas ferro aliquo …ccidiſti? Si feciſti, quinque dies in pane & aqua poenileat. Haſt thou eaten birds which the Hawk hath beaten down, and haſt thou not killed them before with ſome iron tool? If thou haſt done it, do penance with bread and water. Again,(c)(c)Comediſti aves & animalia quae in retibus ſtrangulantur? &c. Haſt thou eaten birds and beaſts that were ſtrangled in the net, and ſo were found dead? Ʋnleſs thou haſt done it, being preſt with hunger, if thou haſt done it, thou muſt do penance ſixteen dayes with bread and water.

The Church of Rome of our dayes profeſſeth to believe, that no meat is of its nature polluted and unclean. Yet many things ſhew that they believe the contrary. For the Schoolmen, as(d)(d)Durand. Mimat. Rationali divin. Offic. l. 6. cap. 7. Cum piſces ſint caro, quare hoc tempore comedantur? Reſp. Deus non maledixit aquis, quoniam per aquam Baptiſmi futura erat remiſſio peccatorum. Durandus, Alenſis, and others, give this reaſon why in faſts they allow eating of fiſh not of fleſh, becauſe in the flood God curſed not fiſhes as he did the beaſts of the earth, and that becauſe by the waters of Baptiſm he was to give remiſſion of ſins.

Of the ſame opinion, that meats are polluted by their Nature, traces are ſeen in ſo many exorciſms and conjurations which are made in the Roman Church over meats and other creatures, as it were to get them out of the Devils poſſeſſion. For example when ſalt is exorciſed, the Biſhop or the Exorciſt ſaith,(e)(e)In Miſſali Romano Exorciſo te creatura ſalis, &c. I exorciſe thee thou creature of ſalt, &c. that all fancy and wickedneſs and craft of the Devil may fly from the place where thou ſhalt be ſpred, and that every unclean Spirit be adjured; Theſe words are ſaid with many ſigns of the Croſs; And in many places they bring cattell to the Church, to bleſs them before they be eaten.

In this (as in all other things) the Roman Church hath changed the antient cuſtoms. For now they keep forced faſts, whereas they were free in old time, and every one obſerved as much as he would of them. The abſtinences were made without opinion of merit or ſatisfaction to Gods juſtice, either for ones ſelf or for another: And the obſervations were diverſe in the ſeveral Countries by the preſcript of the ſeveral Biſhops without expecting the decrees and ordinances of the Biſhop of Rome. And we ſhall ſee hereafter, that other Churches not only were different from the Roman Church, but alſo condemned her as contrary to the Apoſtolical tradition. The chief abſtinence of antient Chriſtians(f)(f)Fulgent de …ide ad Petrum cap 42. Dei ſervos quia carnibus & vino abſtinent, &c. Baſilius Hom, 1. de jejunio. foreign. was from wine upon faſting dayes, knowing that wine is like oyle poured upon burning coals, and that it is the greateſt kindler of luſt. But the Roman Church permits the uſe of wine upon faſting dayes: And the Celeſtins and other Benedict in Fryars who never eat fleſh, have in their meals of the moſt excellent wine, to each his portion, as much as would ſerve three ſober men. They eat of the moſt exquiſite fiſh in great plenty, and in markets they have that priviledge to take what fiſh they pleaſe, next after the King: Sweet meats, dryed fruits, and other dainties are permitted to them; yet after all they ſay, that they keep a continual faſt. They take wine largely to obey the Apoſtles command to Timothy, to uſe a little wine for his ſtomacks ſake. And that ſerveth for ſatisfaction to God. And when they have too much ſatisfied for themſelves, the Pope gathers in his treaſure the overplus of that ſatisfaction, and diſtributes it by indulgences. But in hunger and want to eat a little bit of p. 513fleſh in Lent is a great ſin, and a caſe reſerved to the Biſhop, or to the Penitentiary.

The Jeſuites faſt but little, and endeavour to moderate the rigor of thoſe Laws. For that the Jeſuite Emanuel Sa gives many exceptions. Theſe are ſome of them.(g)(g)Emanuel Sa, Aphor. in verbo Jejunium. Jejunium non violant quae ſumuntur per modum medicinae vulgo electuaria; Nec cibi praeguſtatio ut fit a coquo & pincerna, nec gentaculum ex more veſpertinum vel ex cauſa ſumptum mane. Things that are taken for Phyſick as Electuaries, and the eſſay of meats, ſuch as Cooks and Cup-bearers make, and a break-faſt taken at night according to cuſtom, or in the morning for ſome cauſe, do not violate a faſt. Again,(h)(h)Excuſat à jejunio aetas minor anno vigeſimo primo vel major ſexageſimo. Ut plurimum debilitas magna gravidam eſſe vel lactare, non habere ſufficientem cibum ad prandium, damnum aliquod notabile, occupatio melior ut concionando, &c. Vel alioqui labor non ferens jejunium, ut artificium aut iter pedibus agentium, cauſa reddendi conjugi debitum, vel non ei diſplicendi cum haec jejunio impediuntur. Denique diſpenſatio Epiſcopi vel Parochi illo abſente. A man is excuſed from faſting, if he be under one and twenty years of age, or above threeſcore. For the moſt part a great debility, being with child, or giving ſuck, or if one hath not meat enough to dinner, the fear of ſome notable danger, or if one be imployed about ſome better thing, as preaching, teaching, hearing, confeſſions, &c. Then a labour that will not bear faſting, as that of tradeſmen, or of thoſe that travell on foot, or if one muſt pay the duty to his wife, or the fear of diſpleaſing her when that duty is hindered by faſting; Finally, the diſpenſation of the Biſhop or the Parſon in his abſence; All theſe excuſe from faſting. Cardinal Tolet a Jeſuite hath the like exceptions in the ſixth book of the inſtitution of Prieſts, chap. 1. & 4. To the excepted perſons he adds the beggars. According to theſe rules, of twenty perſons nineteen ſhall be excuſed from faſting.

CHAP. 4. Of ordinary faſts upon week dayes practiſed in the antient Church, and of Saturday faſt.

THE Phariſees would faſt two dayes in the week, as the Phariſee ſaith, Luke 18.12. I faſt twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I poſſeſs. (a)(a)Theophylactus in hunc locum, foreign. Druſius quaeſitis per Ep. 35. Caſaub. in Baro. pag. 63.Thoſe two dayes were the ſecond and the fifth of the week, which we call Munday and Thurſday. Their reaſon was, becauſe (ſaid they) Moſes aſcended into the mount upon the ſecond day of the week, and came down from it upon the fifth.

The antient Chriſtians near the Apoſtles time, burning with zeal, and ſtudying ſobriety, would not be inferiour to the Jews in that exerciſe, and faſted alſo twice a week, upon Wedneſdayes and Fridayes.

That cuſtom was in Tertullians (b)(b)Tertul. contra Pſychicos cap. 2. Proinde nec ſtationum quae & ipſae ſuos quidem dies habeant quartae feriae & ſextae, paſſive tamen currant, neque ſub lege praecepti, neque ultra ſupremam diei.time, which was two hundred years after Chriſts birth: for he introduceth the Orthodox Chriſtians ſpeaking thus, The ſtation dayes (ſo he calls the ordinary faſts) which are conſtant, the fourth and the ſixth of the week run indifferently, not by the law of any commandment. And in the fourteenth chapter, Stationibus quartam & ſextam Sabbati dicamus. We dedicate to ſolemn faſts the fourth and ſixth day of the week. And Epiphanius in the hereſie of Aerius, which is the ſeventy ſeventh, Who is he that agreeth not [with the reſt of the Church] that in all climats of the habitable world the fourth day of the week, and the day before Saturday is a faſt conſtituted in the Church? In the life of Fulgentius Biſhop of Ruſpa in Africa, a diſciple of St. Auſtin, Chap. 29.(d)(d)Per ſingulas ſeptimanas omnes Clericos ac viduas, & quicunque potuiſſet ex Laicis, quarta & ſexta feria ſtatuit jejunare. He gave order that every week all the Clerks, and all the Widows,(c)(c)foreign. and p. 514all among the Lay-people that could do it, ſhould faſt the fourth, and the ſixth day of the Week. That is, upon Wedneſday and Friday. By theſe Widows he means the Deaconeſſes. Clemens Alexandrinus ſpeaks thus,(e)(e)Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. foreign. The underſtanding man (whom he calls Gnoſtick) underſtands the Riddles of the Faſt, even of the faſts of the fourth day, and of the day of the Preparation: For the one is called the day of Mercury, the other the day of Venus. See the Roman Decree in the third Diſtinction of the Conſecration, Can. de Eſu, and Can. Jejunia. And Auſtin Epiſt. 86. It is evident by the Teſtimony of Tertullian, and by that of Fulgentius, that theſe faſts were ordinary, but that none of the people was bound to keep them, but that every one kept what he would or could of that cuſtome, without the obligation of a Law. As in effect the ſixty ninth Canon of the Apoſtles binds none but the Clerks to faſt. Whence it followeth, That the Roman Church hath left the antient cuſtomes, having made thoſe two faſting-days of neceſſary obſervation; whereas in old time they were free, and none of the people was bound to keep them. And having left the faſt of Wedneſday,, and brought the cuſtom of faſting upon Saturday, and upon the Lords day, againſt the antient conſtitutions which were univerſally received.

Such then was the cuſtom of the antient Church in Tertullians time. But before him it ſeems that this obſervation of faſting upon Wedneſday and Friday was practiſed but ſome weeks before Eaſter. For Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philadelphians ſpeaks thus.(f)(f)foreign. After Paſſion week neglect not to faſt the fourth day of the week, and the Preparation, giving to the poor the remnant of your meat; Unleſs Ignatius mean that after the faſt of the week before Eaſter one muſt not leave faſting, though they be dayes of joy. Which I ſay, becauſe ſome Fathers affirm, that there was no faſt kept neither upon Wedneſdayes nor upon Frydayes from Eaſter to Whitſunday. Hierom in the Epiſtle to Marcella intimates ſo much. Not but that it is lawfull to faſt all the year, but only in the Pentecoſt. (g)(g)Caſſian. Collat. 21. cap. 18. Numquid poſſunt filii Sponſi lugere quamdiu cum illis eſt ſponſus? &c. Quae verba proprie quinquageſimae tempus oſtendunt.Of which Caſſian giveth the reaſon in the eleventh and eighteenth chapters, becauſe (ſaith he) thoſe were the dayes in which the Bridegroom was reſtored, and that it is written, Can the ſons of the Bridegroom faſt while the Bridegroom is with them? But ſeveral ages have very much diverſified the cuſtoms. And in the ſame age the cuſtoms of ſeveral Countryes were diverſe.

CHAP. 5. Of the Faſts of Saturday, and the Lords day.

ALL the antient Church almoſt with one conſent held the faſts of Saturday, and of the Lords day to be unlawfull, yea to be great crimes before God.

Among the Canons which are called Apoſtolical, the ſixty fourth is this,(a)(a)foreign. If a Clark be found faſting upon the Lords day or upon Saturday, one only excepted, let him be depoſed; But if he be a Lay-man, let him be excommunicated; That only Saturday is Eaſter Eve.

Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philadelphians, (b)(b)foreign.If any faſt upon the Lords day or upon Saturday, he is a murtherer of Chriſt.

In Clements Conſtitutions in the ſeventh book, chap. 24. after the order that all Saturdayes and Lords dayes be Holy dayes or Feaſts, it is added,(c)(c)Ʋnum Sabbatum ſervandum vobis eſt in toto anno quod pertinet ad ſepulturam Domini, in quo jejunare oportet, non feſtum agere. There is one only Saturday in the whole year which ye muſt obſerve, as belonging to the Lords burial; in that you muſt faſt, and not keep it a Feaſt.

Caſſian in the third book, chap. 10. diſputeth againſt the Roman Church, which p. 515faſted upon Saturday, ſaying for excuſe, that they did it after St. Peters example, who being at Rome faſted upon a Saturday, being the next day to fight with Simon Magus. Which Auſtin in the eighty ſixth Epiſtle to Caſulanus, ſaith to be held a fable by moſt of the Romans. But Caſſian ſaith,(d)(d)Nec tamen ex hoc canonica fuiſſet jejunandi regula promulganda, quod non generalis obſervatio ſtatuerat, ſed ut ſemel fieret, ratio neceſſitatis extorſerat. that Peter did that out of neceſſity, not to give it as a rule.

Ambroſe in the book of Elias and faſting,(e)(e)Quadrageſimae totis praeter Sabbatum & Dominicam jejunatur diebas. There is a faſt upon all the dayes of Lent, but only upon Saturday, and the Lords day.

The Church of Milan in Ambroſe's time, and many ages afer did not faſt up-Saturday, keeping comformity in that point with the Churches of Aſia, Greece, and Aegypt, as Ambroſe ſaid to Auſtin, and as Auſtin relates it in the one hundred and eighteenth Epiſtle to Januarius. (f)(f)Cum Roma venio, jejuno Sabbato, cum hic ſum non jejuno. Sic & tu ad quam forte Eccleſiam veneris, ejus morem ſerva.When I am at Rome, I faſt upon Saturday; when I am here (that is at Milan) I do not faſt. Thou alſo likewiſe, what Church ſoever thou come to, conform thy ſelf to the cuſtom of the ſame. The only Church of Rome oppoſed the general cuſtom of the Churches. Yet Pope Innocent in the Epiſtle to Decentius commands very expreſly faſting upon Saturday, and ſaith(g)(g)Dementis eſt bidui [jejunium] agere ad conſuetudinem, Sabbato praetermiſſo. It is a folly to do the contrary.

For theſe cauſes the ſixth Univerſal-Council aſſembled again at the Palace of Trull at Conſtantinople made an expreſs Canon againſt the Roman Church in theſe terms,(h)(h)Can. 55. foreign. Becauſe we have learned that in the City of Rome they faſt upon Saturdayes in Lent, contrary to the Order conſtituted by tradition in the Church. It is decreed by the holy Synod, that in the Roman Church alſo the rule ſhall immutably hold, which pronounceth, that if a Clark be found faſting upon the Lords dayes or upon Saturdayes, one only excepted, he muſt be depoſed, and if he be a Layman, he muſt be excommunicated. All the Biſhops of Greece, Aſia, and all the Eaſt were aſſembled in that Council. And by ſpeaking ſo, they ſhewed that they held not themſelves ſubject to the Roman Church.

CHAP. 6. Examination of the proofs whereby Cardinal du-Perron goeth about to prove that Lent is of divine inſtitution.

FOR all other faſts in general, the Cardinal brings no other proof but tradition, which yet we have ſhewed to have been altogether changed and diſfigured by the Roman Church, and that ſhe oppoſeth the cuſtoms, and conſtitutions and Canons of antient Councils. Lent only he endeavours to ground upon holy Scripture. For having ſaid that the time before the paſſion of Chriſt is the fitteſt for faſting, he adds,(a)(a)In the ſecond obſervation of book 2. ch. 8. pag. 658. That God made the waters of the flood to rain forty dayes and forty nights. That the people of Iſrael was relegated forty years in the wilderneſs. That Moſes, Elijah, the Ninivites, and Chriſt himſelf faſted forty dayes. That in the antient Law the chaſtiſement of thoſe that were …aten with rods exceeded not the number of forty blows. Whence St. Paul ſaith 2 Cor. 11. I have received forty ſtripes ſave one. That new born babes laugh not before they be forty dayes old, as that number being deſigned by Nature it ſelf for tears and complaints. Alſo that whereas we give unto God the tythe of all our other goods, we give him in Lent the tythe of our time, as Caſſianus obſerveth. For taking from Lent the Lords dayes, upon which there is no faſt, the remaining thirty ſix dayes are the tythe of the whole year.

One ſhould need a great deal of ſpare time to ſtay upon ſuch abſurdities. It p. 516rained forty dayes (ſaith this Prelat) therefore we muſt faſt forty dayes before Eaſter. Iſrael was forty dayes in the wilderneſs, then Chriſtians muſt faſt out the Lent. Moſes and Elijah and Chriſt were forty dayes without eating at all, Ergo in the forty ſix dayes before Eaſter (for Lent laſteth ſo long) we muſt abſtain from fleſh, and eat fiſh, herbs, ſweet meats, &c. Upon this let us hear Chryſoſtome in the forty ſeventh Homily upon Matthew. (b)(b)foreign.Chriſt gave this inſtitution, Learn of me that I am meek and humble of heart. He ſaith not, I have faſted, although he might have ſpoken to them of his forty dayes; But he ſpake not to them of that, but learn that I am meek and humble of heart; For Chriſt will not have us to imitate him in his miracles, but in his vertues. And they that think to imitate the miraculous faſt of Chriſt by eating fiſh, ought to be condemned not to eat at all, and to imitate him in drinking vinegar.

That which followeth is of the like abſurdity. We muſt faſt in Lent, for the Jews gave not above forty ſtripes: He that diſputes ſo, deſerveth fifty; But for that which comes after, twice as many. Children laugh not before the fortieth day, Ergo we muſt faſt in Lent. What he ſaith of children is falſe; But though it were true; what doth it for Lent? And if we owe no more unto God but the tythe of our time, for whom ſhall the reſt be? And is it impoſſible to conſecrate unto God a day upon which we eat a little fleſh? But what is that tythe? Thirty ſix dayes (ſaith he) are the tythe of the year. Why then doth Lent laſt forty ſix dayes? We take the Lords dayes from that number ſaith he, as good as ſaying, that he will not have the Lords dayes of Lent to be conſecrated unto God; But there alſo he miſreckoneth himſelf, for there are but ſix Lords dayes in Lent, and in thoſe Lords dayes no fleſh is eaten. After the muſtering of theſe ſcientifical demonſtrations, who can be ſo dull as to make a doubt that Lent is well grounded upon the word of God?

CHAP. 7. That Cardinal du Perron was ignorant of the original of Lent, and in what ſenſe that word was taken in the Antient Church. Diverſity of antient cuſtoms in this matter.

THeſe words of Chriſt Matth. 9.15. The dayes will come when the Bridegroom ſhall be taken from them, and then ſhall they faſt, gave occaſion to the Chriſtians that lived next to the time of the Apoſtles to faſt on the dayes next before Eaſter, becauſe in thoſe dayes Chriſt was taken from his Diſciples; For having been put on the Croſs upon Friday at noon, he remained in death the reſt of that day, and all the following day, untill the firſt day of the week, about two hours before Sun-riſing: All that time amounts to forty hours. Wherefore the faſt before Easter, was called foreign or Quadrageſima, which word in the firſt and moſt antient ſignification was taken for a faſt of forty hours. Hence alſo it came, that the firſt Chriſtians held it an unlawfull thing, yea a great ſin to faſt upon the Lords day, becauſe it was the day upon which the Bridegroom was reſtored, that is the day upon which Chriſt aroſe from the dead. For the ſame reaſon the antient Chriſtians did not faſt in the forty dayes from Eaſter to Aſcention day, becauſe in thoſe dayes the Bridegroom was reſtored, and th… Diſciples enjoyed the Lords preſence. Which term they made ten dayes longer, even to Pentecoſt or Whitſunday; All which time it had been a crime and a ſcandal among Chriſtians to faſt, or to ſit, or to bow the knee in the Church.

Some preſently after the Apoſtles having begun to faſt before Eaſter forty hours, which are two whole dayes, others increaſed the number of the dayes, ſome faſting three dayes, ſome four, ſome five, according to their devotion, and p. 517the ſeveral cuſtoms of Churches; In which diverſity the name of Quadrageſima remained nevertheleſs every where, and they that faſted four or five dayes, would ſay that they had faſted the Quadrageſima. Who ſo believeth that whenſoever there is mention of Quadrageſima in the Fathers, the word muſt alwayes be taken for a Faſt of forty dayes, is very much miſtaken, whereas it ſignifies only the Faſt before Eaſter, which at the firſt was but of few dayes, and that very diverſly, according to the ſeveral cuſtoms of the ſeveral Churches. Yet M. du Perron will take that word every where for a faſt of forty dayes.

In the end that name of Quadrageſima gave occaſion to ſome Churches to prolong the Faſt till forty dayes, which example was followed by other Churches, yet diverſly, and ſtill with ſome variation.

Whereupon four things are to be obſerved. 1. That the Paſtors and Deacons, and other Eccleſiaſticall perſons, were far more tyed to theſe obſervations then the people: and that the people took of Lent, or Quadrageſima as much as they liſted, every one faſting as he thought good, ſome more, ſome leſs, without incurring for that any Eccleſiaſtical cenſure. 2. That in the places where Lent was moſt auſtere, yet they never faſted upon the Lords day, nor upon Saturday, ſaving only the Saturday before Eaſter, becauſe it is one of the days upon which the Bridegroom was taken from his Diſciples. 3. That theſe various conſtitutions were made by the Biſhops of the ſeveral places without expecting Decrees from Rome, or the will of the Roman Biſhop: whoſe Decrees did not croſs the Sea, and extended not beyond the limits of his Biſhoprick. 4. That times as well as places have diverſified the cuſtoms, which in the firſt and ſecond age were much different from thoſe of the fourth and fifth ages.

Whence it follows that M. du Perron treating of the antiquity and original of Lent, is very wide of the truth, and intangleth that matter, muſtering up teſtimonies of Authors of the fourth and fifth ages; For no other teſtimonies doth he alleadge (unleſs it be Tertullian who is againſt him) leaving behind the true and firſt antiquity. All theſe things being unknown to the Cardinal, it is no wonder if he confounds himſelf and the Reader, and ſpeaks as not ſeeing where he is. We look not to be believed without proofs, and will produce a good number of teſtimonies of Antiquity upon that ſubject.

(a)(a)Sciendum ſane hanc obſervantiam Quadrageſimae, quamdiu Eccleſiae illius primitivae perfectio inviolata permanſit, penitus non fuiſſe.In Caſſian in chapter 30. of the twenty firſt Collation, old Theonas, whoſe holineſs Caſſian admireth, ſaith, that in the beginning of the Chriſtian Church, and when ſhe was in her purity, there was no Lent at all, and no Law about that point. But that the cuſtom of Lent was brought in when the Church began to be corrupted, to turn men away from covetouſneſs and worldly cares.

The fifth book of Apoſtolical conſtitutions attributed to Clement the firſt Biſhop of Rome in the thirteenth chapter, gives order that the Faſt of Lent begin the Munday before Eaſter, and end upon Friday. (b)(b)Celebrate hoc jejunium ante jejunium Paſchae quod incipiens à ſecunda Sabbati deſi…at in Paraſceven.Celebrate (ſaith he) that Faſt before the Faſt of Eaſter, which may begin on the ſecond day of the week, and end upon the day of the Preparation, which is Friday. And on the twenty fourth chapter,(c)(c)Monemus vos ut jejunetis per hos dies, quemadmodum nos etiam jejunavimus, cum nobis ipſe ereptus eſt uſque ad veſperam. We exhort you that you faſt upon theſe dayes, as we alſo have faſted, when Jeſus Chriſt was taken from us untill the evening. But upon other dayes let every one eat at the ninth hour, or in the evening, as he can. In which places we ſee that when theſe books were written, the Faſt before Eaſter in the place where the Author lived was but of five dayes, and that the cauſe which moved them to faſt, was becauſe in thoſe dayes the Bridegroom was taken away. And that of thoſe five dayes, the three firſt were but half faſts, but that on the two laſt they faſted with auſterity.

Irenaeus who was near the time of the Apoſtles in his Epiſtle to Victor Biſhop of Rome, related by Euſebius, ſpeaks thus of the diverſity of cuſtoms of faſting before Eaſter. (d)(d)Euſeb. hiſt. l. 5. cap. 23. foreign, &c.Some think that they muſt faſt but one day; ſome will faſt two; others faſt more: Others meaſure their faſt day by forty hours of day and night. This place is obſervable, For it ſhews that then there was no certain Law common unto all Churches. Alſo that ſome faſted but one day, the day p. 518upon which Chriſt remained in the grave a whole day, which is Saturday; and that others faſted upon Friday alſo, becauſe Chriſt dyed upon that day. But that ſuch as uſed a more exact obſervation, preciſely faſted a Lent or Quadrageſima of hours, even the forty hours from the Lords being put on the Croſs to his reſurrection. The Reader may alſo obſerve, how in the time of Irenaeus Lent was ſhort in compariſon of that of our dayes.

That which Irenaeus addeth, is no leſs conſiderable, Such a diverſity (ſaith he) among the obſervers [of the Paſchal Faſt] did not begin in our time, but long before; in the time of thoſe (as it is credible) who having governed without obſerving an exact rule, have turned afterwards into cuſtom that which was done in ſimplicity, and by a particular obſervation. Nevertheleſs all of them had peace among themſelves, and we are ſtill in peace among us. Which is the ſame thing, as we ſaid, that in the beginning there was no Law about the faſt before Eaſter, but that the voluntary abſtinences of ſome private perſons by the lapſe of time have been turned into cuſtoms, and from cuſtoms into Laws, and thoſe Laws different according to the diverſity of places, yet ſo that there was no quarrel for that diverſity: So far were they from holding a Faſt of forty dayes to be of an abſolute neceſſity, as the Cardinal doth imagine, putting forty dayes where there was but one or two, or forty hours; and an abſolute neceſſity, where there was liberty.

Tertullian in the ſecond chapter of the book which he made againſt the Orthodox, and truly faithfull, whom he calleth in ſcorn foreign ſpiritual. (e)(e)Certe in Evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinatos putant, in quibus ablatus eſt Sponſus, & hos eſſe jam ſolos legitimos Chriſtianorum jejuniorum.They hold (ſaith he) that thoſe dayes in the Goſpel were determined for faſting, in which the Bridegroom was taken away; and that thoſe only faſts are lawfull among the Chriſtians. Now thoſe dayes are but two, Friday and Saturday before Eaſter. For before thoſe dayes Chriſt was with his Diſciples, and was not yet taken from them. They held then that Chriſtians ought not to faſt before Friday, becauſe before that day the Bridegroom was not yet taken from them.

In the thirteenth chapter he reproacheth the Orthodox for ſaying that they were not to faſt but upon thoſe dayes in which the Bridegroom was removed from them, meaning Friday and Saturday before Eaſter, and that to that conſtitution nothing was to be added, all innovations being unlawfull, and yet that themſelves added faſts beſides thoſe dayes,(f)(f)Ecce convenio vos & praeter Paſcha jejunantes citra illos dies quibus ablatus eſt Sponſus, & ſtationum ſemi-jejunia interponentes, & vos interdum pane & aqua victitantes ut cuique viſum eſt. Denique reſpondetis haec ex arbitrio agenda non imperio. interpoſing ſtations, upon which they faſted half the day, ſometimes feeding upon bread and water, as every one liked beſt. In a word (ſaith he) you anſwer that thoſe things ought to be done according to every mans will, not by command. A very expreſs teſtimony, out of which we learn that they that faſted then above two dayes before Eaſter, did it not being obliged to it by any Law, ſome more, ſome leſs, according to their will.

It is alſo to be noted, that the Orthodox accuſed the Montaniſts to be exceſſive in their faſts, and to faſt too many dayes in the year. Which Tertullian excuſeth thus chap. 15.(g)(g)Quantula apud nos eſt interdictio ciborum! duas in anno hebdomadas Xerophagiarum, nec totas exceptis Sabbatis & Dominicis, offerimus Deo. How ſmall is the interdiction of meats among us! We conſecrate unto God two weeks in the year, in which we ſtint our ſelves to dry meats; Neither do we conſecrate them whole, for we except Saturdays and Lords dayes. By that account they faſted ten dayes before Eaſter, and that was judgeed exceſſive by the Orthodox. This was far from faſting forty dayes.

Caſſian in the twenty firſt Collation, chap. 18. ſaith that he had learned the ſame from the Monks of the deſart, namely(h)(h)Numquid poſſunt filii ſponſi lugere quamdiu cum illis eſt ſponſus? Venient autem dies cum auferetur ab eis ſponſus & tunc jejunabunt. Quae verba licet ante reſurrectionem dixerit corporis ſui, tamen proprie quinquageſimae tempus oſtendunt in quo poſt reſurrectionem 40. dies Domino cum Diſcipulis epulante jejunare eos quotidianae ejus praeſentiae gaudium non ſinebat. that the ſons of the Bridegroom cannot weep while the Bridegroom is with them; But that the dayes come when he ſhall be taken from them, and then ſhall they faſt. Whence he inferreth, that the Diſciples during the Quinquageſima, that is, for fifty dayes after Eaſter p. 519were not to faſt, becauſe they had Chriſt with them; grounding the faſt before Eaſter upon this, that the Church muſt faſt upon the days in which the Lord was taken from them, that is two days only. For although in Caſſians time, that is 420. years after Chriſts Birth, Lent was of many weeks, Chriſtians then faſting thirty ſix dayes, yet he ſheweth thereby the original of Lent, and that in the beginning they faſted only upon thoſe two dayes in which Chriſt was taken from his Diſciples.

Dionyſius Alexandrinus who flouriſhed in the year 260. puts but ſix faſt days before Eaſter, and thoſe diverſly obſerved.(i)(i)Balſamon. in Canonib. Dionyſii Alexand. pag. 881. foreign. All (ſaith he) do not equally diſtribute the ſix faſting dayes, nor in the ſame manner, but ſome paſs them all without eating, others paſs two, others three, others four, others never a one.

In Cappadocia in St. Baſils time the Lenten faſt was but of five dayes. For ſo he ſpeaks in the firſt Sermon of faſting,(k)(k)foreign. Let the belly grant us ſome truce. Let that continually craving petitioner compound with us for five dayes. And in the ſecond Sermon,(l)(l)foreign. This is a wicked thought, ſince a faſt of five dayes is proclaimed unto us, let us ſoak our ſelves this day in drunkenneſs.

In the ſixteenth Homily of Chryſoſtom to the people of Antioch one may ſee that in his time at Antioch they faſted forty days before Eaſter; Yet that the people were not bound to faſt the whole Lent, but that every one obſerved ſuch part of it as he liked beſt.(m)(m)foreign. The cuſtome of all (ſaith he) about Lent, is to ask one another, how many weeks every one hath faſted. And upon that you ſhall hear them ſay, the one that he hath faſted two weeks, the other three, the other all. But what profit do we get by it, if being without good works, we faſt out the whole Lent? If another tells thee I have faſted the whole Lent, ſay thou to him, I had an enemy, but I am reconciled; My cuſtom was to detract, but I have left it. He makes little account of Lent in compariſon of amendment of life.

In that time many Churches began to extend Lent to many weeks, ſo that nevertheleſs the people were not obliged to it, and the people faſted neither upon the Lords day, nor upon Saturday, excepting only the laſt Saturday of Lent. So that they that had a Lent of forty dayes, yet faſted neither Sundays, nor Saturdayes, but one and the laſt, as we have proved: By which means Lent had but thirty faſting dayes.

Sozomenus and Socrates, antient Eccleſiaſtical hiſtorians, will give us more light in this matter. Theſe are the words of Sozomenus, book 7. chap. 19. As for the Faſt which goes before the Lords reſurrection, and is called Lent; Some reckon it to be ſix weeks, as the Slavonians, and the Occidental men, all Lybia, Egypt, and Paleſtina; Others reckon ſeven, as Conſtantinople, and the Nations about as far as Phenicia. Others in thoſe ſix or ſeven weeks faſt ſome dayes here and there. Others faſt three whole dayes together before Eaſter. This Author writ about the year of Chriſt 445.

Socrates who lived but a few years before him, in the twenty ſecond chap-of the fifth book relates a great variety of cuſtoms in diverſe Churches concerning the obſervation of faſts before Eaſter. Then he adds,(n)(n)foreign. An admiration came into my mind, how theſe being different about the number of the days, yet call that Faſt Quadrageſima, labouring to give a reaſon of this word, ſome one way, ſome another.

As for the Roman Church, in the Latine traduction of the Chronicle of Euſebius made by Hierom, theſe words are found in the year of Chriſt, 136.(o)(o)Quadrageſimale jejunium à Teleſphoro per hoc idem tempus inſtitutum ac praeceptum quidam ſcribunt. Some write, that in that time the Faſt of Lent was inſtituted and commanded by Teleſphorus Biſhop of Rome. But that clauſe is not found in the Greek Copies of Euſebius. It is like enough it was added by Hierom, who meant not that Teleſphorus p. 520preſcribed Lent to the Univerſal Church, but to the Church of Rome only. The Pontifical of Damaſus in the life of Teleſphorus ſaith the ſame.(p)(p)Hic conſtituit ut ſeptem hebdomadas ante Paſcha jejunium celebraretur. He conſtituted, that for ſeven weeks before Eaſter the Faſt ſhould be celebrated. That Decree of Teleſphorus, whether it be true or falſe, is found in the firſt Tome of the Councils, in theſe words,(q)(q)Septem hebdomadas plenas ante ſanctum Paſcha omnes Clerici in ſortem Dei vocati à carne jejunent, quia ſicut diſcreta eſſe debet vita Clericorum à Laïcorum converſatione, ita & in jejunio debet fieri diſcretio. That for ſeven whole weeks before Eaſter, all Clarks called unto the Lords inheritance, faſt from fleſh; for, as the life of Clarks muſt be diſtinct from the converſation of Lay-men, it muſt be diſtinct alſo in matter of faſting. That conſtitution declareth expreſly, that this faſt was not preſcribed but unto the Clarks, not unto the people; and that the people at that time did not abſtain from fleſh before Eaſter. But in effect the Decretal of Teleſphorus which inſtituteth Lent, is falſe and forged. That is juſtified by the barbarouſneſs of the ſtyle. In which theſe words are found, In Miſſarum ſolemniis, alſo Epiſcopi ſunt obediendi non detrahendi & non inſidiandi. And cavere ſe, for ſibi, and many the like elegancies unſuitable with the time of Teleſphorus, when the Latine tongue was pure ſtill. The falſhood appears alſo, in that Teleſphorus in that Decretal ſtyleth himſelf Archbiſhop, a name which began about the end of the fourth age, about 245. years after the death of Teleſphorus. The firſt place where we meet with that word, is the 21. Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, who writ about the year of Chriſt, 375. And next in Epiphanius, in the 68. and 69. Hereſies, where Peter and Alexander are ſtyled Archbiſhops of Alexandria. Now Epiphanius writ about the year 400.

Whoſoever will know what the ſtate of the Chriſtian Church was in the time of Teleſphorus, and how Chriſtians hid themſelves in Caves for fear of perſecutions, and the poor and perſecuted Biſhops of Rome were eminent only in Martyrdom, will eaſily acknowledge that Teleſphorus could not have written the contents of that Decretal Epiſtle, wherein he forbids Lay-men to bring any accuſation againſt a Biſhop: An unjuſt Law, for if a Biſhop had raviſhed a Lay-mans wife, or killed his ſon, had it not been lawful for a Lay-man to call upon the Magiſtrate for juſtice? And how could Teleſphorus have hindred it?

That Epiſtle bears for date the Conſulat of Mark, without adding any ſirname, againſt the cuſtom of all Dates of Conſuls.

Out of all that we ſaid, it is made evident that in vain Cardinal du Perron labours, in the eighth Chapter of the ſecond Obſervation, to heap up many teſtimonies of Fathers that ſpeak of the Faſt before Eaſter, and of Lent, to make the world believe, that every time that the faſt before Eaſter or Lent are mentioned in the books of the antient writers, a faſt of forty dayes muſt be underſtood, ſeeing that we have ſhewed that the faſts before Eaſter in the firſt ages were of few dayes. That ſome Chriſtians would faſt one day, ſome two, ſome three; and that the word Quadrageſima, came firſt from the forty hours, in which the Bridegroom was taken from the Diſciples.

Obſerve alſo, that all the teſtimonies which he alleadgeth, wherein it is ſpoken of Lent, are out of the fourth and fifth ages, and by conſequent diſcover not the original and firſt obſervation of Lent. Note likewiſe, that in all the Authors of the three firſt ages, that word of Lent or Quadrageſima is not found; neither in Juſtine, nor in Irenaeus, nor in Clemens Alexandrinus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in Cyprian, nor in Arnobius, nor in Lactantius, nor in Minutius. Which makes us doubt of the truth of the Epiſtles of Ignatius, where yet the word foreign, ſignifieth not forty dayes, as we have ſhewed.

The 50. Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which du Perron alleadgeth, ſpeaks indeed of Quadrageſima, but ſaith not how many dayes it laſted. We muſt know alſo, that the Canon that follows, teacheth us that then in Lent they faſted neither on Saturday, nor on the Lords day.

Eſpecially that which he maintains is moſt falſe, that the obſervation of faſting forty dayes before Eaſter was of abſolute neceſſity. For we have ſhewed by a multitude of teſtimonies, that the people were not bound to it. And that great variety of cuſtoms of faſting, ſheweth ſufficiently, that Chriſtians in thoſe dayes were not ruled by the Laws and cuſtoms of the Church of Rome.

p. 521CHAP. 8. How the diſcipline of Faſting in the Roman Church, is full of abſurdity and abuſe.

THe Roman Church hath made a multitude of Laws about the diſcipline of faſting; to the obſervation whereof(a)(a)Tolet. de Inſtruct. Sacerd. l. 6. c. 3. Praeceptum jejunii ſecundum omnium Doctorum ſententiam obligat ſub mortali. the people are ſo bound, that to violate them is held a mortal ſin, that is, a ſin that deſerveth eternal damnation; although of all thoſe diſtinctions of meat, in which faſting is made to conſiſt, God hath commanded none, and they are even contrary to his Word, as we have proved; to ſay nothing of that raſhneſs whereby ſinners make themſelves judges of the merit of crimes, a judgement that belongs to none but God.

In all faſts of the Roman Church fleſh is forbidden. But in Lent, beſides fleſh, it is prohibited alſo to eat eggs, butter, and all kinds of milkineſs. Yet on the firſt day of Lent, the people of Paris will go in proceſſion to our Ladies Church, to get leave to eat butter in Lent.

In the Indies ſubject to the King of Spain, the Law of Faſts is not yet eſtabliſhed, as Cardinal Tolet ſaith,(b)(b)Id. ibid. cap. 2. ſect. 4. becauſe (ſaith he) faith is yet but new there; that is, of about eightſcore years ſtanding. Yea in Spain, upon Fridayes and Saturdayes, one may eat the feet and ears of Calves and Sheep. Theſe they call Menudillos, and take them for fiſh.

In the Roman Church they faſt upon Fridayes and Saturdayes between Eaſter and Whitſuntide; which in the antient Church would have been a great crime, and likewiſe faſting upon the Lords day in Lent, which not to do, is now become a mortal ſin in the Roman Church.

There they make faſting to conſiſt, not in ſobriety, but in diſtinction of meats: So that he that upon a faſting day hath but taſted fleſh, is held to have violated his faſt. But he that on the ſame day hath been drinking wine, and eating fiſh and ſweet-meats with great exceſs, is accounted to have faſted, as Cardinal Tolet ſaith in the ſixth book of the Inſtitution of Prieſts, chap. 2. Quamvis aliquis multum excedat, non ob id ſolvit jejunium. Although one make great exceſs, he violates not his faſt for that: In the ſame place(c)(c)Armilla, verbo jejunium, ſect. 12. Probat collationes quae fiunt Romae ſecundum conſuetudinem tinelli ob conſuetudinem, & quia Pontifex tolerat cum ſciat; quamvis iſti ſint abuſus hominum parum timoratorum. he ſaith that he dares not condemn Banquets which they uſe to make at Rome in Lent, Secundum conſuetudinem tinelli. According to the cuſtom of the Tinel; which is a cuſtom to give the one to the other the Poſie, to make banqueting go from houſe to houſe. For (ſaith he) the Pope knoweth that, and tolerates it, although this be an exceſs of men that have little fear. In effect, the Pope and the Cardinals of Rome, are they that leaſt obſerve Lent, for they that give diſpenſations to others, have reaſon to take as many diſpenſations for themſelves as their heart deſireth. They that make Laws, are not ſubject unto Laws.

Upon the diſcipline of faſting, the Doctors made ſuch gallant rules and jolly diſtinctions, that one may ſee they had a mind to make themſelves merry. They diſpute whether thoſe perſons keep the Faſt, that take meat another way then by the mouth, as they that take in Lent nutritive Clyſters, made with fleſh broth, not for Phyſick, but for food and ſuſtenance.

And becauſe ſome will drink largely upon faſting dayes, even early in the morning, the Doctors determine that(d)(d)Tolet. de Inſtruct. Sacerd. l. 6. c. 1. Potus quamvis ſit vinum, non ſolvit jejunium, ſive ſumatur ante prandium ſive poſt. Sed lac ſolvit jejunium. drinking doth not violate the Faſt, whether one drink before or after dinner. By this means one may be drunk, and yet faſting. There is no danger of being drunk in drinking milk, yet milk is excepted; of which if one drink but a ſpoonful, he hath violated his faſt. And that is the reaſon why Saint Catharine of Siena, being yet in ſwadling clothes, would not ſuck upon a Friday.

Yet theſe Gentlemen, by a fatherly compaſſion, have made exceptions for the comfort of ſouls, whereby they make faſts void, and make the Laws of faſts ridiculous. We have ſhewed before, how they declare, that a man under one and twenty years of age is not obliged to faſt,(e)(e)Tolet. lib. 6. c. 4. ſect. 7. Excuſatur à jejunio, qui non poteſt reddere uxori debitum jejunando. Eman: Sa idem dicit Aphor. verbo jejunium. nor he that by faſting is made leſs p. 522able to lie with his wife; nor he whoſe wife is not ſatisfied; nor Tradeſmen, Plowmen, Travellers, Pilgrims, Beggars, Preachers, Women with child, &c. So that it will be found that the Law of Faſting obligeth no body.

The Jeſuite Emanuel Sa, and Cardinal Tolet, after other Doctors, determine(f)(f)Eman. Sa ibid. ſect. 13. Qui ſemel jejunium violat non peccat poſtea ſaepe comedendo. Tolet. l. 6. de Inſtruct. Sacerd. c. 3. ſect. 5. that he that hath once violated the Faſt, ſins not afterwards by frequent eating of fleſh: That is, that by once ſinning, he hath got liberty of ſinning for the whole Lent. As if they ſaid, that a man by lying or ſtealing in the beginning of Lent, may continue the ſame courſe till Eaſter. And that he is never the more guilty for that.

The extremity of the diſeaſe, is, that the Roman Church placeth faſting among the works that deſerve eternal life, which is purchaſing the Kingdom of heaven at an eaſie rate. The proud Phariſee (Luke 18.) boaſted of his faſting twice a week, and notwithſtanding was rejected of God; although his pride was not come to that height, to preſume thereby to merit eternal life. Can any doubt but that this language would delight God very much, if a man loaden with merits would tell him in the day of Judgement, Thou muſt give me eternal life, for I have abſtained from fleſh in the Eves, in the Rogation weeks, and in Lent? Only I have drunk wine ſomewhat largely, and filled my belly with fiſh and ſweet-meats. Is not this enough to ſatisfie God? For although he hath not commanded that diſtinction of meats, yea though he hath prohibited it in his Word, yet the Pope, who cannot err in the faith, hath otherwiſe diſpoſed of it.

This is not all, for they will have the Faſt to ſerve to expiate ſins that are paſt, and to make a payment unto Gods juſtice; ſaying, This poor ſinner hath indeed committed murthers and adulteries, but in recompence he hath kept Lent, he hath eaten neither fleſh, nor eggs, nor milk, upon certain dayes; that muſt be taken for payment, and accepted in Gods judgement for a full ſatisfaction. Yea it may happen that ſuch ſatisfactions will be an overplus of payment, and that a man ſhall pay more then he oweth. In that caſe, the overplus ſhall ſerve for ſome other that hath not ſatisfied enough. The Pope ſhall lay up that overplus in his Treaſure, and diſtribute it to others by his Indulgences, and the living faſting for the dead, ſhall fetch them out of Purgatory, by the grant and conceſſion of his Holineſs. Oh the height of ſuperlative and abuſe and abſurdity! It muſt needs be acknowledged that God is very angry with men, ſince he hath poured upon them ſuch an horrible ſpirit of ſtumbling.

By theſe things it is evident, that the Popes have conſtituted Faſts, not for an exerciſe of abſtinence, but for marks of their Empire. For by theſe Laws they rule the Tables and Kitchens, not only of the people, but alſo of Kings and Princes, and lay a yoak upon conſciences, from which Chriſt hath delivered his Church. And the more the Pope multiplyeth his Prohibitions, the more ſuitors hath he for Diſpenſations.