A Century of Sermons, Sermon 5
THE FIFTH SERMON UPON Our Saviours Tentation.
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, foreign, 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 Antiquity, 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 ſolemnly 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.In Feſto Pentecoſt. 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 Jeruſalem 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 handle 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 explained, 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 conſequent, 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; upon 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 admire him, Be thou exalted Lord in thine own ſtrength; In the ſecond we love him, becauſe 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 Grammarians have medled with this Point to confirm it by this rule,Bo…ae Annot. Jejunavit quadraginta dies non diebus, quia tempus continuum ferè quarto caſu ponitur. Nouns of time expreſſed plurally 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 nothing, Luk. iv. 2. There is no efficacy in numbers ſaid the wiſer Philoſophers, and very 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,Maldon. in hunc locum. 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 Moſes faſted forty days at the inſtitution of the Law, and Elias as long at the reſtauration 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 produced 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 becauſe 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 natural 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 followed with imperfect imitation. And becauſe a large field of controverſie lies before 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 Authority. 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 irrefragable from divine Authority, when it is not ſo, we reject it. Stand faſt in the liberty wherewith God hath made you free, Lib. de horet. bapt.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 Ordinances, Periculoſum eſt in divinis rebus ut quis cedat jure ſuo; It is of a dangerous conſequent 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 Sacrament, 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 himſelf 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 Analogical 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 threatned 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 aſſequimur; 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 voluntary, 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,Videl. in Ep. ad Phil. apud Ignat. 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,Videl. loc. Predicto. that even the Roman Churches did ceremoniouſly keep the faſt of Satterday 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 punctually 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 Apoſtolical 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 opinioniſts 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 unpolluted to him that eats Gods Creatures with thankſgiving, and a reſolved conſcience, and with temperance: But thus the Friers flaſh out, that the Seas were never 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 another 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 confutation 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 commanded 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 direction. 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 commutation 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 ſcrupulouſly refuſed it, and ſaid he would not break Lent becauſe he was a Chriſtian; Serapion 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 hundred 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, Lib. 30. contra Fauſt. cap. 3.1 Tim. iv. St. Paul ſays it was the Doctrine of Devils to forbid meats; Fauſtus the Manichean infers, then Moſes in the Old Law wrote the Doctrine 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 Orthodox Chriſtians; the Church of Rome it ſelf will ſtand for me in this quotation, becauſe 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 Conſtitution.
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,Videl. loco Praedict. 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 Nicodemus, 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, Praefat. in Commen. Lucae.not an Apoſtle, but an Apoſtolical man; and ſays Maldonat the Jeſuite, thoſe were called Apoſtolical men, Qui quamvis Chriſtum non audiviſſent, audiviſſent 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 Traditions to the next generations,Collat. 21. c. 30. Intererit multum Davus ne loquatur an Herus. I will balance 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,Epiſt. 86. and appointed to draw men to compunction and repentance. Cardinal Bellarmine 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.Canon. 5. The Nicen Council doth appoint indeed that every year in all places two Provincial Synods ſhould be held,Catech. 1. 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, foreign, 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 being 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,Euſeb. lib. 5. 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.De Coron. milit. Praefat. i … Pſal. 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 together 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 generation. 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; Ep. 11…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 conſuetudo 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 appoint 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 occaſions, 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 Conſtantinople, becauſe the Emperours kept their chief Palace there, ſhould have, foreign equal Priviledges with the Church of Rome. And it is a Story known to all Divines, 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 Pontifical 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 devotion, 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 Diſciples. Only Chriſt did diſpenſe with his train, becauſe the Children of the Bridechamber 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 Sabbath 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.Eccleſ. Polit. lib. 5. com. 72 But our judicious Hooker argues very learnedly upon Mat. xii. 1. Chriſt walking through the fields the Diſciples pluckt the Ears of Corn: The Phariſees 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 approves 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 ordinary 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 injunction 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 nothing 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 pittance 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 reduced to the vertue of temperance, obedience to the vertue of juſtice, giving honour 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, whether it be a laudable appointment. Certainly, it is laudable in a very great degree, 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 duty 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,Serm. de Temp. 64. 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 commonly 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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 moderation 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 Anniverſary 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 Superſtition; 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 antiquitatis 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 condemnable: 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 immutably bind him, but the Lent was made for man, and not man for it. The Libertine is too ſcandalous that tuſheth altogether at this Ordinance; but they that terrifie weak conſciences, that do not punctually obſerved it at all times, are too rigorous, 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 concern not the main ſubſtance of Religion, or the neceſſary welfare of the Commonwealth, 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 contrary 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 advantage 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 knowledge 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 written, 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 contract 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 nature calls for, and muſt be paid; but our Saviour had them under ſubjection quantum, 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.