The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 8

THAT THE INEXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, IN RESPECT OF THE SCANDAL OF THE WEAK, MAY BE PLAINLY PERCEIVED. TWELVE PROPOSITIONS TOUCHING SCANDAL ARE PREMITTED.

_Sect._ 1. There remaineth yet another inconveniency found in the ceremonies, which is scandal. They hinder our spiritual edification and growth in faith and plerophory, and make us stumble instead of going forward. The best members of the body should be cut off when they offend, much more the superfluous humours, such as the popish ceremonies must be reckoned to be, Matt. v. 29, 30. And what if some wide consciences think the ceremonies no stumbling-blocks? Nay, what if some pretend that they edify? _Ferulae asinis gratissimae sunt in pabulo, caeteris vero jumentis praesentaneo veneno._(_351_) It is enough to evince the inconveniency of the ceremonies, that some are scandalised, yea, many tender consciences are made to stumble by their means. We learn from our Master, that the scandal of one is to be cared for, much more the scandal of many, especially if those many be of the number of the little ones which believe in him, Matt. xviii. 6. But for our clearer proceeding in this argument I will premit these propositions, of which we are to make use.

_Sect_ 2. 1st. S???da??? ?? p??s????a, Scandal or offence is not the grieving or displeasing of my brother, for peradventure when I grieve him or displease him, I do edify him. Now edification and scandal are not compatible, but scandal is a word or deed proceeding from me, which is, or may be, the occasion of another man's halting, or falling, or swerving from the straight way of righteousness. _Scandalum_ (saith Jerome(352)) _nos offendiculum, vel j uinam et impactionem pedis possumus dcac quando ergo legimus, quieunque de minimus istis scandalizavenit quempiam hoc intelligimus quieunque dicto factove occasionem j uinoe cuiquam dederit Scandalum_ (saith Almandus Pola.n.u.s(353)) _est dictum vel factum, quo alius detenor redditum_.

2d. This occasion of halting, stumbling, or swerving, which we call scandal, is some times only given on the part of the offender, sometimes only taken on the part of the offended, sometimes both given on the one part, and taken on the other. The first sort is _scandal given and not taken_, the second is _scandal taken and not given_, the third is _scandal both taken and given_.

3d. All these three kinds of scandal are sinful. The first is the sin of the offender, for it is a fault to give my brother occasion of stumbling, though he stumble not. The second is the sin of the offended, who should not take offence where he hath no cause. The third is a sin on both sides, for as it is a fault to lay an occasion of falling before another, so it is a fault in him to fall, though he have occasion.

_Sect._ 3. 4th. A scandal given, or active, is not only such a word or deed whereby we intend the fall of our brother, but also such a word or deed(354), _quod de sui ratione habet, quod sit inductivum ad peccandum, puta __ c.u.m aliquis publice facit peccatum, vel quod habet similitudinem peccati_, John xvi. 2. Put the case: A man staying away from the Christian a.s.semblies and public wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, intending to employ his studies all this time for the good of the church by writing, such a man doth not only not intend the fall of others, but, by the contrary, he intendeth edification; yet doth he scandalise them, because _ratio et conditio operis_ is scandalous and inductive to sin.

5th. An active scandal is given (and so is faulty) many ways. If it be in a thing lawful, then it makes our brother condemn our lawful deed, yea, animates him by our example to that which in his conscience he condemneth, both which are sin. If it be in a thing unlawful, then is the scandal given and peccant, it, 1. Either our brother be made to fall into the outward act of sin; or, 2. If he be made to stumble in his conscience, and to call in question the way of truth; or, 3. If it do so much as to make him halt, or weaken his plerophory or full a.s.surance; or, 4. If it hinder his growth and going forward, and make him, though neither to fall, nor to stumble, nor to halt, yet to have a smaller progress; or, 5. If none of these evils be produced in our brother, yet when, either through our intention and the condition of the deed together, or through the condition of the deed alone, occasion is given him of sinning any one of these ways.

_Opus nostrum_ (saith a great proctor for popish ceremonies(355)) _quoties sive natura sua, sive superaddito accidente alicujus circ.u.mstantiae, est inductivum proximi ad peccatum, sive causativum magni mali, sive turbativum boni spiritualis; sive impeditivum fidei, &c., quamvis etiam effectus non sequeretur, malum est et peccatum._

_Sect._ 4. 6th. A pa.s.sive scandal, which is taken and not given, is not only faulty when it proceedeth of malice, but also when it proceedeth of ignorance and infirmity; and _scandalum pusillorum_ may be _scandalum acceptum_, on the part of the offended faulty, as well as _scandalum Pharisaeorum_. When weak ones are offended at me for the use of a lawful thing, before I know of their weakness, and their taking of offence, the scandal is only pa.s.sive; and so we see that weak ones may take offence where none is given, as well as the malicious. Now, their taking of offence, though it proceed of weakness, yet is sinful; for their weakness and ignorance is a fault, and doth not excuse them.

7th. A scandal may be at first only pa.s.sive, and yet afterward become active. For example, Gideon's ephod and the brazen serpent were monuments of G.o.d's mercies, and were neither evil nor appearances of evil; so that when people were first scandalised by them the scandal was merely pa.s.sive, but the keeping and retaining of them, after that scandal rose out of them, made the scandal to become active also, because the reserving of them after that time was not without appearance of evil.

_Sect._ 5. 8th. The occasion of a scandal which is only pa.s.sive should be removed, if it be not some necessary thing, and we are not only to shun that which giveth scandal, but also that whereupon followeth a scandal taken, whatsoever it be, if it be not necessary. This is so evident, that Papists themselves subscribe to it; for both Cardinal Cajetan(356) and Dominicus Bannes say, that we should abstain even _a spiritualibus non necessariis_ when scandal riseth out of them.

9th. Neither can the indifferency or lawfulness of the thing done, nor the ordinance of authority commanding the use of it, make the scandal following upon it to be only pa.s.sive, which otherwise, _i.e._, in case the thing were neither lawful nor ordained by authority, should be active. Not the former; for our divines teach,(357) that _scandalum datum_ riseth sometimes, _ex facto in se adiaphoro_, when it is done _intempestive, contra charitatis regulam_. Not the latter; for no human authority can take away the condition of scandal from that which otherwise should be scandal, because _nullus h.o.m.o potest vel charitati, vel conscientiis nostris imperare, vel periculum scandali dati prestare_, saith a learned Casuist.(358)

10th. A scandal is pa.s.sive and taken by the scandalised without the fault of the doer, only in this case,(359) _c.u.m factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi praeter intentionem facientis, et conditionem facti_, so that to the making of the doer blameless, is not only required that he intend not his brother's fall, but also that the deed be neither evil in itself, nor yet done inordinately, and with appearance of evil.

_Sect._ 6. 11th. The scandal not to be cared for is only in necessary things, such as the hearing of the word, prayer, &c., from which we may not abstain, though all the world should be offended at us. In these, I say, and these only, _scandalum quod oritur ex rebus per se bonis et necessariis, non licet evitare, &c., at rerum legitimarum sed non necessariarum dispar est ratio, &c.,_ saith a great Formalist.(360)

12th. We ought, for the scandal of the malicious, to abstain from all things from which we ought to abstain for the scandal of the weak; for we ought not to abstain from necessary things for the scandal of the weak, no more than for the scandal of the malicious, and from things that are not necessary, we ought to abstain for the scandal of the malicious as well as for the scandal of the weak. So that weakness and malice in the offended _non variant speciem scandali_, but only _gradum ejusdem speciei_. Both his fault who is offended through malice, is greater than his fault who is offended through weakness, and likewise his fault who offends the weak in the faith, is greater than his fault who offends those who are malicious against the faith, because as we ought to do good to all men, so chiefly to those of the household of faith. Nevertheless, the kind of scandal remains the same, whether we have to do with the malicious or the weak.

They are, therefore, greatly mistaken, who conclude from Paul's not circ.u.mcising of t.i.tus, Gal. ii. 4, 5, that he cared not for the scandal of the malicious. The argument were good if those false brethren had been scandalised by his not circ.u.mcising of t.i.tus; but they were only displeased hereby, not scandalised. The Apostle saw that they were to be scandalised by his circ.u.mcising of t.i.tus; therefore, of very purpose, he circ.u.mcised him not, because he foresaw _statim fore ut illi traherent in calumniam_, saith Calvin.(361) _Ne eo circ.u.mciso gloriarentur evangelicam libertatem quam Paulus praedicabat sublatam_, saith Bullinger.(362) If they had compelled him to circ.u.mcise t.i.tus, _falsis fratribus parata erat calumniandi ansa adversus Paulum_, saith Pareus,(363) who also inferreth well from this place, that we are taught to beware of two extremes, to wit, the scandal of the weak on the one part, and the pervicacy of false brethren on the other part: _Si enim_, saith he, _usu rerum mediarum videmus, vel illos offendi, hoc est, in fide labefactari vel istos in falsa opinione obfirmari omittendae potius sunt, quia tunc per accidens fiunt illicitae._ Whereupon I throw back the argument, and prove from this place, that Paul cared to shun the scandal of the malicious, which should have followed upon his circ.u.mcising of t.i.tus, as well as he cared to shun the offence of the weak, which should have followed upon his not circ.u.mcising of Timothy; and that Paul cared for the scandal of the malicious is further confirmed by his not taking wages at Corinth. They who would have been offended at his taking wages there were malicious, and did but seek occasion against him, 2 Cor. xi. 12, yet his taking wages there not being necessary (as appeareth from 2 Cor. xi. 9), he abstained.

Christ's not caring for the scandal of the Pharisees is also objected, to prove that if the thing be lawful or indifferent, we are not to care for the offence of the malicious. But Parker answereth well:(364) "The scandal there not cared for is, when the Pharisees are offended at his abstaining from their was.h.i.+ngs and his preaching of true doctrine,-both of which were necessary duties for him to do. And when he defendeth his healing on Sabbaths, Luke xiii. 15, and his disciples' plucking ears, Matt. xii. 7, upon this reason they are duties of necessity and charity, he plainly insinuateth, there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the malicious are scandalised. When the thing was indifferent, doth he not forego his liberty for to please them, as when he paid tribute, lest he should offend them, although he knew they were malicious?" Matt. xvii. 27.

Thus have I evinced a main point, namely, that when scandal is known to follow upon anything, if it be not necessary, there is no respect whatsoever which can justify it.

CHAPTER IX.

ALL THE DEFENCES OF THE CEREMONIES, USED TO JUSTIFY THEM AGAINST THE SCANDAL IMPUTED TO THEM, ARE CONFUTED.

_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said it followeth inevitably, that since scandal riseth out of the controverted ceremonies, and since they are not things necessary, they are to be condemned and removed as most inconvenient. But that the inconveniency of them, in respect of the scandal which they cause, may be particularly and plainly evinced, I come to discuss all the defences which our opposites use against our argument of scandal. These Formalists, who acknowledge the inconveniency of the ceremonies in respect of scandal, and yet conform themselves to the same, are brought in by Hooker(365) making their apology on this wise: "Touching the offence of the weak, we must adventure it; if they perish, they perish, &c. Our pastoral charge is G.o.d's absolute commandment, rather than that shall be taken from us," &c. The opinion of such, beside that it will be hateful and accursed to every one who considereth it, I have said enough against it heretofore.(366)

_Sect._ 2. Wherefore I will here meddle only with such as go about to purge the ceremonies from the inconveniency of scandal. And first, they commonly answer us, that the scandal which followeth upon the ceremonies is pa.s.sive and taken only, not active and given, which answer I find both impertinent and false. It is impertinent, because, put the case: the scandal were only pa.s.sive and taken, yet the occasion of it should be removed out of the way when it is not a thing necessary, according to my 8th, 11th, and 12th propositions; and if any of our opposites will deny this, let them blush for shame. A Jesuit shall correct them,(367) and teach them from Matt. xvii. 27, that Christ shunned a scandal which would have been merely pa.s.sive, and therefore that this is not to be taken for a sure and perpetual rule, _scandalum datum, not acceptum esse vitandum_.

One of our own writers upon this same place noteth,(368) that this scandal which Christ eschewed, had been a scandal taken only, because the exactors of the tribute-money ought not to have been ignorant of Christ's immunity and dignity; yet because they were ignorant of the same, lest he should seem to give a scandal, _cedere potius sua libertate voluit. Ideo non tantum dicit: ne scandalizentur: sed ne scandalizemus eos, hoc est, ne scandali materiam eis demus_.

_Sect_. 3. Their answer is also false: 1. There is no scandal taken but (if it be known to be taken, and the thing at which it is taken be not necessary) it is also given. The scandal of the weak, in the apostles'

times, who were offended with the liberty of eating all sorts of meats, was pa.s.sive and taken, as Zanchius observeth,(369) yet was that scandal given and peccant upon their part, who used their liberty of eating all sorts of meats, and so cared not for the offence of the weak. Think they then that our taking of offence can excuse their giving of offence? Nay, since the things whereby they offend us are no necessary things, they are greatly to be blamed.

That the ceremonies are not necessary in themselves our opposites acknowledge, and that they are not necessary in respect of the church's determination, I have proved in the first part of my dispute. Wherefore, having no necessity in them, they ought to be abolished, when scandal is known to arise out of them.

2. Giving and not granting that the scandal of them who were first offended at the ceremonies was only pa.s.sive, yet the using of them after scandal is known to rise out of them, must be an active scandal, because the keeping of a thing which is not necessary, after scandal riseth out of it, is an active scandal, though the scandal which at first rose out of it had been only pa.s.sive, as I show in my seventh proposition.

3. The truth is, that both first and last the scandal of the ceremonies is active and given; for an active scandal is _dictum vel factum vere malum, aut mali speciem habens, quo auctor aliis peccandi occasionem praebet_, say our divines.(370) An active scandal is ever a sin in him who offendeth, _quia vel ipsum opus quod facit est peccatum, vel etiam si habeat speciem peccati_, &c., say the schoolmen.(371) A scandal given and faulty, _id opus aut ex se malum, aut apparentur_, say Formalists themselves.(372)

_Sect._ 4. Now to say the least that can be said, the ceremonies have a very great appearance of evil, and so the scandal which followeth them shall be proved to be active. The divines of Magdeburg(373) infer from 1 Thess. v. 22, _speciem mali etiam scandala conficere_. Junius teacheth,(374) that scandal is given, _sive exemplo malo, sive speciem habente mali_. M. Ant. de Dominis maketh(375) the scandal sin, _Ubi quis opere suo aliquo, vel de se malo vel indifferenti, aut bono, sed c.u.m specie apparentis mali, proximum inducit ad peccandum, etiamsi intentio ipsius ad hoc non feratur._

But to discover the appearance of evil which is in the ceremonies, let us consider with Zanchius,(376) that the appearance of evil from which the Apostle exhorteth to abstain may be expounded two ways. First, It may be referred to the preceding words, and so meant of prophecy and trying the doctrine of prophets or preachers, for we should beware in this matter of all which hath any appearance of evil, that is, from all things, _quae ab haereticis in suam sententiam, malamque consequentiam trahi possunt_. For example, saith Zanchius, Nestorius said, that we are saved by the blood, not of the Son of G.o.d, but of the Son of man. Now if any, suppressing that negative, should say, we are saved by the blood of the Son of man, though this might receive a right explication, yet it hath an appearance of evil, because from it Nestorius might confirm his heresy. Appearance of evil thus expounded will be found in the ceremonies in question. If a phrase or form of speaking from which heretics may draw bad consequences, and confirm their errors, though not truly, yet in show, be an appearance of evil, then much more are visible ceremonies and received customs, from which heretics get occasion to confirm their heretical errors, and d.a.m.nable superst.i.tions, very plain and undeniable appearances of much evil.

Now Papists confirm many of their superst.i.tions by the English ceremonies.

Parker(377) giveth too many clear instances, namely, that by the English cross Martial justifieth the popish cross, and Saunders the popish images.

That the English service-book is drawn by Parsons and Bristowe, to a countenancing of their ma.s.s-book; that Rainold draweth private baptism to a proof of the necessity which they put in that sacrament; that the Rhemists draw the absolution of the sick, prescribed in the communion-book, to an approbation of their absolution, auricular confession, and sacrament of penance. To these instances I add, that the Rhemists(378) confirm the least of their a.s.sumption of Mary for the other feasts which the church of England observeth. And so doth J. Hart.(379)

_Sect._ 5. It will be said, that Papists have no ground nor reason to confirm any of their superst.i.tions by the English ceremonies. But I answer: 1. If it were so, yet forasmuch as Papists draw them to a confirmation of their superst.i.tions, we should abstain from them as appearances of evil. Eating (at a private banquet) of that which was sacrificed to idols, did confirm an idolator and infidel in his religion, as Pareus(380) noteth; yet from this the idolator had no reason to confirm himself in his idolatry; but because the idolator, seeing it, might draw it to a confirmation, the Apostle will have it for that respect forborne.

When the Arians abused trin-immersion in baptism, to signify three natures of the three persons, Pope Gregory,(381) and the fourth council of Toledo ordained,(382) that in Spain, thrice was.h.i.+ng should no longer be used in baptism, but once only. The Arians had no just reason to draw such a signification from the ceremony of trin-immersion, yet was it abolished when those heretics did so abuse it. If any say, that we are saved by the blood of the Son of man, the phrase is orthodox, because of the communication, or rather communion of properties, and the Nestorians cannot with good reason by it confirm their heresy, yet are we to abstain from this form of speech, in Zanchius's judgment, when it is drawn to the confirmation of that error.

I conclude with that which Parker(383) allegeth out of the _Harmony of Confessions: c.u.m adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt_. Mark _rapiuntur_. 2. The ceremonies do indeed greatly countenance those superst.i.tions of Papists, because _communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione_;(384) so that Papists get occasion from the ceremonies, of confirming, not only those popish rites which we have not yet received, but also the whole popish religion, especially since they see Conformists so siding with them against Non-Conformists, and making both their opinions and practices to be better than we reckon them to be.

Saravia,(385) perceiving how much the popish sacrament of confirmation is countenanced and confirmed by our bishoping, thinks it best to put the fairest face he can upon the Papists' judgment of that b.a.s.t.a.r.d sacrament.

He would have us believe, that the Papists do not extol the dignity of the sacrament of confirmation above baptism. But he should have considered that which Cartwright(386) marketh out of the first tome of the councils, that in the epistle which is ascribed to Eusebius and Melciades, bishops of Rome, it is plainly affirmed, that the sacrament of confirmation "is more to be reverenced than the sacrament of baptism."

_Sect._ 6. Zanchius hath another exposition of the appearance of evil, which doth also agree to the ceremonies. The appearance of evil which maketh scandal, and from which the Apostle would have us to abstain, may be taken generally of all sorts of sin, and all evil things whatsoever; for so we should abstain from all that which hath any appearance of evil; _nullam proebentes occasionem proximo nostro aliquid mali de n.o.bis suspicandi_. He instanceth for example, the eating of idolothites in Paul's time, 1 Cor. x. Now if the eating of idolothite meats was an appearance of evil, and so scandalous, because it gave the weak occasion to suspect some evil of such as did eat them, much more idolothite rites which have not only been dedicated and consecrated to the honour of idols, but also publicly and commonly used and employed in idolatrous wors.h.i.+p; surely whosoever useth such idolothites, gives great occasion to his brother to suspect some evil of him, because of such evil-favoured appearances. And thus we see how great appearance of evil is more than manifest in the ceremonies, which maketh the scandal active, if there were no more; but afterwards we shall see the ceremonies to be evil and unlawful in themselves, and so to be in the worst kind of active scandal.

_Sect._ 7. Two things are objected here by our adversaries, to make it appear that the scandal of conformity is not active nor faulty upon their part. 1. They say they are blameless, because they render a reason of that which they do, so that we may know the lawfulness of it. To this sufficient answer hath been made already by one whose answers I may well produce to provoke Conformists therewith, because no reply hath ever been made to them. "This (saith he(387)), if it be true, then see we an end of all the duty of bearing with the weak; of forbearing our own liberty, power, and authority in things indifferent, for their supportance; yea, an end of all the care to prevent their offence, by giving them occasion _aut condemnandi factum nostrum, aut illud imitandi contra conscientiam_,(388) which we have so often,(389) so seriously, with so many reasons, obtestations, yea, woes and threatenings, commanded to us throughout the word. What needed Paul to write so much against the scandal of meats, and against the scandal of idolothious meats? This one precept might have sufficed, let the strong give a reason for his eating, &c. Though he hath given many reasons to them of Corinth for the lawfulness of taking wages; though he hath given divers reasons for the lawfulness of all sorts of meats to them of Rome, yet neither will take wages himself, nor suffer others to eat all sorts of meats, when others are offended. And what is that which he writeth Rom. x.? Take and receive the weak for their supportance, and not for controversy and disputation," &c.

It will be said that they are to be thought obstinate, who, after a reason given, are still scandalised. But the answer is in readiness: _Fieri potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditae, qui idcirco quamvis ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc propusillis_.(390) They are rather to be thought obstinate in scandalising, who, perceiving the scandal to remain, notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that take not away the occasion of the scandal. But say some,(391) whoever ought to be esteemed weak, or not capable of reason, ministers must not be so thought of. Whereunto I answer with Didoclavius:(392) _Infirmitatem in doctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, et superiorum temporum historia de dimicatione inter doctores ecclesiae, ob ceremonias, idipsum probat. Parati etiam sunt coram Deo testari se non posse acquiescere __ in Formalistarum foliis ficulneis_. The reason which they give us commonly is will and authority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such an one as cannot clear nor resolve our consciences. But let their reasons be so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being offended, notwithstanding of their reason? Dare they say that those who contended so much of old about the celebration of Easter, and about the feast of the Sabbath, were not weak, but obstinate and malicious, after a reason was given? Why consider they not, that "men may, for their science,(393) be profitable ministers, and yet fail of that measure of prudence whereby to judge of a particular use of indifferent things?"

_Sect._ 8. 2d. They say they give no scandal by the ceremonies, because they have no such intent as to draw any into sin by them. _Ans._ A scandalous and inordinate quality or condition of an action, any way inductive to sin, maketh an active scandal, though the doer have no intention to draw into sin. This I made good in my fourth proposition; and it is further confirmed by that great scandal whereby Peter compelled the Gentiles to Judaise, Gal. ii. 14. "He constrained them (saith Perkins(394)) by the authority of his example, whereby he caused them to think that the observation of the ceremonial law was necessary." It was then the quality of his action which made the scandal active, because that which he did was inductive to sin, but we are not to think that Peter had an intention to draw the Gentiles to sin. Cardinal Baronius(395) laboureth to make Peter blameless, and his fact free of all fault; _quia praeter ipsius spem id acciderat_, and it fell forth only _ex accidenti et inopinato, ac praeter intentionem ipsius_. M. Ant. de Dominis(396) confuteth him well: _Est scandalum et c.u.m peccato, quando quis licet non intendat peccatum alterius, facit autem opus aut ex se malum aut apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet, consequuturum alterius peccatum, aut quodeunque malum: nam etiam dicitur illud voluntarium interpretative._

_Sect._ 9. I will yet descend more particularly to confute our opposites'

several answers and defences, which they have used against our argument of scandal. And I begin with our Lord Chancellor: "As for the G.o.dly amongst us (saith he(397)), we are sorry they should be grieved; but it is their own fault, for if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it that should offend them?"

_Ans._ 1. He does not well express scandal (whereof he is there speaking) by grief; for I may be grieved, yet not scandalised, and scandalised, yet not grieved, according to my first proposition touching scandal.

2. To what purpose tells he it is their own fault? Thinks he that there are any offended without their own fault? To be offended is ever a fault,(398) as I show in my third and sixth propositions; so that if a scandal be not removed where it is men's own fault that they are offended, then no scandal shall ever be removed, because all who are scandalised commit a fault in being scandalised. _Nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas; et ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam_, saith Aquinas,(399) giving a reason why, in the definition of scandals, he saith not that it giveth cause, but that it giveth occasion of ruin.

3. Why thinks he that if the things be in themselves lawful, they are purged of scandal? What if they edify not? 1 Cor. xx. 23. What if they be not expedient? Are they not therefore scandalous, because in themselves lawful? This s.h.i.+ft is destroyed by my ninth proposition. And, I pray, were not all meats lawful for the Gentiles in the apostles' times? Yet this could not excuse their eating all sorts of meats, when the Jews were thereby offended.

4. Whereas he demandeth, if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it that should offend them? I demand again, though adultery, murder, &c., be in themselves unlawful, what is it that should offend us? Should we offend or be scandalised for anything? Nay, then, we should sin; for to be offended is a sin.

5. He had said to better purpose, What is it that may offend them, or doth offend them, that it may be voided? Whereunto I answer, that there is a twofold scandal which may be and hath been given by things lawful in themselves (as I touched in my fifth proposition), viz, the giving of occasion to the weak to condemn our lawful deeds, and the animating of them to follow our example against their own consciences-both ways we may make them to sin. The Apostle, 1 Cor. x. 29, where he is speaking of a certain kind of idolothites which are in themselves lawful, and only evil in the case of scandal, showeth, that if the weak, in a private banquet, see the strong eating such meats as have been offered to idols, notwithstanding of warning given, then is the weak one scandalised, because, would the Apostle say, _Vel ipse etiam edet tuo exemplo, vacillante conseientia, vel tacite factum tuum d.a.m.nabit._(400) Behold what scandal may arise even out of things which are in themselves lawful, which also ariseth out of the ceremonies (let them be as lawful as can be). 1.

We art provoked to disallow of lawful things, and to condemn the doers as superst.i.tious and popishly affected. 2. We are animated by the example of Formalists to practise conformity, which in our consciences we condemn, and by consequence do sin, because he that doubteth is d.a.m.ned, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

_Sect._ 10. Let us see next how the Bishop of Edinburgh can help the cause. He will have us not to respect scandal, because it is removed by the law. "For (saith he(401)) by obedience to a lawful ordinance, no man gives scandal, and if any take offence, both the cause and occasion thereof is the perverseness only of the person offended." Tertullian saith well, _Res bona neminem offendit nisi malam mentem_.

_Ans._ 1. I show in my ninth proposition, that the ordinance of superiors cannot make that to be no scandal which otherwise should be scandal. If this be not taken well from us, let one of our opposites speak for us, who acknowledgeth that human power cannot make us do that which we cannot do without giving of scandal, and that, in this case, the pretext of obedience to superiors shall not excuse us at the hands of the Supreme Judge.