The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 9

2. I would learn of him what makes a lawful ordinance about matters of fact or things to be done? Not the will of superiors, else there shall be no unlawful ordinances (for every ordinance hath the will of the ordainer), not the lawfulness of the thing in itself which is ordained neither, for then every ordinance which prescribeth a thing lawful in itself, were it never so inexpedient in respect of supervenient circ.u.mstances, should be lawful. To a lawful ordinance then is required, not only that the thing ordained be lawful in itself, but also that it be not inexpedient, so that a thing may be lawful in itself, yet not lawfully ordained, because the ordinance commandeth the doing of it, whereas there are many things lawful which ought not to be done, because they are not expedient, 1 Cor. vi. 12.

3. Since it cannot be a lawful ordinance which ordaineth a thing inexpedient, it cannot be a lawful obedience which is yielded to such an ordinance.

4. If by a lawful ordinance he mean (as it seems he doth) an ordinance prescribing that which is lawful in itself, then his answer is false. What if an ordinance of superiors had ordained the Corinthians to eat freely of all meats which were in themselves clean? Durst the Bishop say that this ordinance of superiors had been of greater weight and superior reason than the law of charity, which is G.o.d's law? Had no man given scandal by obedience to this ordinance? And would not the Apostle for all that have forbidden, as he did, the using of this liberty with the offence of others?

5. When any man is offended at a thing lawful, prescribed by an ordinance, the cause thereof is indeed in himself (yet it is not always his perverseness, but oftimes weakness), but the occasion of it is the thing at which he offendeth, which occasion should ever be removed when it is not a thing necessary, as I showed already.

6. As for that sentence of Tertullian, it must admit the exception of a reverend divine. He signifieth, saith Pareus,(402) scandal not to be properly committed, save in things evil in themselves, or else indifferent _quanquam interdum c.u.ma bonas intempestive factas, etiam committi possit_.

_Sect._ 11. In the third place, we will look what weapons of war Dr Forbesse produceth in his _Irenic.u.m_,(403) falsely so called. And first, he will not hear us touching scandal, except we first acknowledge the ceremonies not to be evil in themselves otherwise he thinks we debate in vain about scandal, since we have a more convenient way to exterminate the ceremonies, by proving them to be evil in themselves, and also because, when we are pressed with the weight of arguments, we will still run back to this point, that nothing which in itself is unlawful can be done without scandal.

_Ans._ 1. The argument of scandal is not vainly or idly debated, for though we prove the ceremonies to be evil in themselves, yet fitly we argument also from the scandal of them, because this maketh yet more. 1.

_Ad rem_, for the scandal of a thing is more than the unlawfulness of it; every unlawful thing is not scandalous, but that only which is done to the knowledge of another. 2. _Ad hominem_, for that we may either content or convince our opposites, we argument _ex ipsorum concessis_, to this purpose,-that since they yield the ceremonies to be in themselves indifferent, therefore they must acknowledge that they are to be forborne, because scandal followeth upon them, and they should abstain from things indifferent, in the case of scandal.

2. Whereas he thinks we will still turn back to the unlawfulness of the ceremonies in themselves, albeit we may justly make use of this answer, when they go about to purge the ceremonies from scandal by the lawfulness of them in themselves, (because the argument of scandal doth not presuppose our concession of the lawfulness of the ceremonies, but theirs,) yet he deceives himself in thinking that we cannot handle this argument without it, for were they never so lawful in themselves, we evince the scandal of them from the appearance of evil which is in them,(404) so that, without respecting the unlawfulness of the ceremonies in themselves, we can and do make good our argument of scandal, so far as concerneth the ceremonies considered by themselves.

But when our opposites object, that many are scandalised by us who refuse the ceremonies, we here compare the scandal of non-conformity, if there be any such (for though some be displeased at it, I see not how they are scandalised by it), with the scandal of conformity, and show them that the scandal of non-conformity is not to be cared for, because it is necessary, and that by reason of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies. I will make all this plain by a simile.

A pastor dealing with a fornicator, layeth before him both his sin and the scandal of it too. Now, as touching the scandal, the fornicator careth not for it, because he is in the opinion that fornication is indifferent.

Whereupon the pastor thus proceedeth, If it were indifferent, as you say, yet because scandal riseth out of it, you should abstain. And so, amongst many arguments against fornication, the pastor useth this argument taken from the scandal of it, both for aggravating the sin in itself, and for convincing the sinner, and this argument of scandal the pastor can make good against the fornicator out of his own ultroneous and unrequired concession of the indifferency of fornication (because things indifferent, and in the case of scandal, and when they are done with the appearance of evil, should be forborne), without ever mentioning the unlawfulness of it.

But if in a froward tergiversation, the fornicator begin to reply, that he also is scandalised and provoked to go on in his fornication obstinately, by the pastor rebuking him for so light a matter, and that the pastor's reproof to him hath appearance of evil, as much as his fornication hath to the pastor, albeit here it may be answered, that the pastor's reproof is not done inordinate, neither hath any appearance of evil, except in the fornicator's perverse interpretation, yet for stopping the fornicator's mouth, as well more forceably as more quickly, the pastor rejoineth, that if any scandal follow upon his reproof, it is not to be regarded, because the thing is necessary, and that because fornication being a great sin, he may not but reprove it.

So, albeit our argument of scandal holdeth out against the ceremonies considered by themselves, without making mention of the unlawfulness of them in themselves albeit also when the scandal of non-conformity (if there be any such) is compared with the scandal of conformity, we say truly that this hath appearance of evil in its own condition, and that hath none, except in the false interpretation of those who glory in gainsaying.

Yet for further convincing of our opposites, and darting through their most subtile subterfuges with a mortal stroke, we send them away with this final answer,-You should abstain from the ceremonies when scandal riseth out of them, because you confess them to be in themselves indifferent. But we do avouch and prove them to be unlawful, wherefore it is necessary for us to abstain, though all the world should be offended.

_Sect._ 12. The Doctor(405) proceedeth to throw back the argument of scandal upon our own heads, and to charge us with scandalising both the church and commonwealth by our refusing the ceremonies. But what? should a doctor be a dictator? or a proctor a prater? Why, then, doth he ventilate words for reason? That some are displeased at our non-conformity, we understand to our great grief; but that thereby any are scandalised, we understand not; and if we did, yet that which is necessary, such as non-conformity is, can be taken away by no scandal.

But the Doctor(406) goeth forward, denying that there is in the ceremonies so much as any appearance of evil, to make them scandalous. Where I observe, that he dare not adventure to describe how a thing is said to have appearance of evil, and consequently a scandalous condition. The man is cautelous, and perceiveth, peradventure, that the appearance of evil can be made to appear no other thing than that which doth more than appear in the ceremonies. And this I have heretofore evinced out of Zanchius.

The Doctor(407) holdeth him upon kneeling in receiving the sacramental elements, and denieth that it is scandalous, or any way inductive to spiritual ruin. But (if he will) he may consider that the ruder sort, who cannot distinguish betwixt wors.h.i.+pping the bread, and wors.h.i.+pping before the bread, nor discern how to make Christ the pa.s.sive object of that wors.h.i.+p and the bread the active, and how to wors.h.i.+p Christ in the bread, and make the wors.h.i.+p relative from the bread to Christ, are, by his example, induced to bread-wors.h.i.+p, when they perceive bowing down before the consecrated bread in the very same form and fas.h.i.+on wherein Papists are seen to wors.h.i.+p it, but cannot conceive the nice distinctions which he and his companions use to purge their kneeling in that act from idolatry.

As for others who have more knowledge, they are also induced to ruin, being animated by his example to do that which their consciences do condemn.

There occurreth next an objection, taken from Paul's not taking wages at Corinth (though he might lawfully), for shunning the offence both of the malicious and the weak; in the solution whereof the Doctor(408) spendeth some words. The substance of his answer is this, that Paul taught it was lawful to take wages, and that they should not be offended at it; and if we do as he did, we must teach that the ceremonies are lawful in themselves, yet not using our power for the time, lest the weak be offended, or lest the malicious glory: but for all that, not denying our right and liberty, nor suffering a yoke of bondage to be imposed upon us by contumacious men. And, besides, that the Apostle was commanded by no ecclesiastical decree to take wages from the Corinthians, as we are commanded by the decree of Perth to receive the five Articles; so that Paul might, without contempt of ecclesiastical authority, abstain from taking of wages, but we cannot, without contempt of the church, reject the Articles.

_Ans._ 1. This importeth, that if the question were not _de jure_, and if we disliked the ceremonies, and were offended at them, for some other reason than their unlawfulness, for this offence they would abstain. It may be his reverend fathers return him small thanks for this device. For let some men be brought forth, acknowledging the ceremonies to be in themselves indifferent, yet offended at them for their inexpediency, whether they be weak or malicious, the Doctor thinks he should abstain for their cause.

2. How knows he that they who were offended at Paul's taking of wages at Corinth, thought not his taking of wages there unlawful, even as we think the ceremonies unlawful?

3. Why judgeth he that we are not scandalised through weakness, but through malice and contumacy? So he giveth it forth both in this place and elsewhere.(409) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?

But, 4. If we were malicious in offending at the ceremonies as things unlawful, and in urging of non-conformity as necessary, should they therefore contemn our being scandalised? Those that would have t.i.tus circ.u.mcised, were they not malicious? Did they not urge circ.u.mcision as necessary? Held they it not unlawful not to circ.u.mcise t.i.tus? Yet did the Apostle abstain because they were to be scandalised, that is, made worse and more wicked calumniators by the circ.u.mcising of t.i.tus, as I have showed;(410) so that albeit we know not to take care for the displeasing of men that maliciously (as necessary) abstaining from that which is lawful to be done, yet must we take care for scandalising them and making them worse; rather, ere that be, we ought to abstain from the use of our liberty.

5. If an ecclesiastical decree had commanded Paul at that time to take wages at Corinth, the Doctor thinks he had contemned ecclesiastical authority in not taking wages, though some should be offended at his taking wages. What! could an ecclesiastical decree command Paul to take wages in the case of scandal? or could he have obeyed such a decree in the case of scandal? We have seen before that no human authority can make that no scandal which otherwise were scandal, so that Paul had not contemned ecclesiastical authority by not obeying their command in this case of scandal which had followed by his obeying, for he had not been bound to obey, nay, he had been bound not to obey in such a case, yea, further, albeit scandal had not been to follow by his taking wages, yet he had no more contemned the church by not obeying a command to take wages than he had done by living unmarried, if the church had commanded him to marry.

The bare authority of the church could neither restrain his liberty nor ours in things indifferent, when there is no more to bind but the authority of an ordinance.

6. Why holds he us contemners of the church for not receiving the five Articles of Perth? We cannot be called contemners for not obeying, but for not subjecting ourselves, wherewith we cannot be charged. Could he not distinguish betwixt subjection and obedience? Art thou a Doctor in Israel, and knowest not these things? Nil, art thou a Conformist, and knowest not what thy fellow Conformists do hold?

_Sect._ 13. One point more resteth, at which the Doctor(411) holdeth him in this argument, namely, that for the offence of the weak necessary things are not to be omitted, such as is obedience to superiors, but their minds are to be better informed.

_Ans._ 1. Obedience to superiors cannot purge that from scandal which otherwise were scandal, as we have seen before.(412)

2. That information and giving of a reason cannot excuse the doing of that out of which scandal riseth, we have also proved already.(413)

3. That the ordinance of superiors cannot make the ceremonies necessary, I have proved in the first part of this dispute. This is given for one of the chief marks of the man of sin,(414) "That which is indifferent, he by his laws and prohibitions maketh to be sin;" and shall they who profess to take part with Christ against antichrist, do no less than this? It will be replied, that the ceremonies are not thought necessary in themselves, nor non-conformity unlawful in itself, but only in respect of the church's ordinance. Just so the Papists profess,(415) that the omission of their rites and observances is not a sin in itself, but only in respect of contemning the church's customs and commandments. How comes it, then, that they are not ashamed to pretend such a necessity for the stumbling-blocks of those offending ceremonies among us, as Papists pretend for the like among them?

_Sect._ 14. But the English Formalists have here somewhat to say, which we will hear. Mr Hooker tells us,(416) that ceremonies are scandalous, either in their very nature, or else through the agreement of men to use them unto evil; and that ceremonies of this kind are either devised at first unto evil, or else having had a profitable use, they are afterwards interpreted and wrested to the contrary. As for the English ceremonies, he saith, that they are neither scandalous in their own nature, nor because they were devised unto evil, nor yet because they of the church of England abuse them unto evil.

_Ans._ 1. Though all this were true, yet forasmuch as they have been abused by the Papists unto idolatry and superst.i.tion, and are monuments of Popery, the trophies of Antichrist, and the relics of Rome's whorish bravery,-they must be granted, at least for this respect, to be more than manifest appearances of evil, and so scandalous.

But secondly, It is false which he saith; for kneeling in receiving the communion is, in its own nature, evil and idolatrous, because religious adoration before a mere creature, which purposely we set before us in the act of adoring, to have state in the wors.h.i.+p, especially if it be an actual image in that act representing Christ to us (such as the bread in the act of receiving) draweth us within the compa.s.s of co-adoration or relative wors.h.i.+p, as shall be copiously proved afterwards.

Other of the ceremonies that are not evil in their own nature, yet were devised to evil; for example, the surplice. The replier(417) to Dr Mortoune's particular defence, observeth, that this superst.i.tion about apparel in divine wors.h.i.+p, began first among the French bishops, unto whom Caelestinus writeth thus:-_Discernendi, &c._ "We are to be distinguished from the common people and others by doctrine, not by garment,-by conversation, not by habit,-by the purity of mind, not by attire; for if we study to innovation, we tread under foot the order which hath been delivered unto us by our fathers, to make place to idle superst.i.tions; wherefore we ought not to lead the minds of the faithful into such things, for they are rather to be instructed than played withal; neither are we to blind and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their minds." In which words Caelestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty which tended to superst.i.tion, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faithful.

Lastly, Whereas he saith the ceremonies are not abused by them in England, I instance the contrary in holidays. Perkins saith,(418) that the feast of Christ's nativity, so commonly called, is not spent in praising the name of G.o.d, but in rifling, dicing, carding, masking, mumming, and in all licentious liberty, for the most part, as though it were some heathen feast of Ceres or Bacchus. And elsewhere(419) he complaineth of the great abuses of holidays among them.

_Sect._ 15. As touching the rule which is alleged against the ceremonies out of Paul's doctrine, namely, that in those things from which we may lawfully abstain, we should frame the usage of our liberty with regard to the weakness of our brethren. Hooker answereth to it, 1. That the weak brethren among them were not as the Jews, who were known to be generally weak, whereas, saith he, the imbecility of ours is not common to so many, but only here and there some such an one is found. 2. He tells us that these scandalous meats, from which the Gentiles were exhorted to abstain for fear of offending the Jews, cannot represent the ceremonies, for their using of meats was a matter of private action in common life, where every man was free to order that which himself did, but the ceremonies are public const.i.tutions for ordering the church, and we are not to look that the church is to change her public laws and ordinances, made according to that which is judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole, although it chance that, for some particular men, the same be found inconvenient, especially when there may be other remedies also against the sores of particular inconveniences. Let them be better instructed.

_Ans._ 1. This is bad divinity that would make us not regard the scandalising of a few particular men. Christ's woe striketh not only upon them who offend many, but even upon them who offend so much as one of his little ones, Matt. xviii 6.

2. That which he saith of the few in England, and not many, who are scandalised by the ceremonies, hath been answered by a countryman of his own.(420) And as for us, we find most certainly that not a few, but many, even the greatest part of Scotland, one way or other, are scandalised by the ceremonies. Some are led by them to drink in superst.i.tion, and to fall into sundry gross abuses in religion, others are made to use them doubtingly, and so d.a.m.nably. And how many who refuse them are animated to use them against their consciences, and so to be d.a.m.ned? Who is not made to stumble? And what way do they not impede the edificatlon of the church?

3. What if there had been a public const.i.tution, commanding the Gentiles to eat all meats freely, and that this hath been judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole, even to signify the liberty of the church of the New Testament? Should not the Gentiles, notwithstanding of this const.i.tution, have abstained because of the scandal of the Jews? How comes it then, that that which the Apostle writeth against the scandal of meats, and the reasons which he giveth, are found to hold over good, whether there be a const.i.tution or not?

4. As for his remedy against the scandal of particular men, which is to instruct them better, it hath been answered before.(421)

_Sect._ 16. Now, if I reckon Paybody to be no body, perhaps some body will not take it well. I will therefore examine how he handleth this argument.

Four things are answered by him(422) to those places, Rom. xiv. 16; 1 Cor.

viii. 10; Matt. xviii. 6, which are alleged against the use of things indifferent, when we cannot use them without scandal.

First, he saith, that all those Scriptures which are quoted as condemning the scandalising of others in things indifferent, speak only of scandalising them who are weak.

_Ans._ 1. Be it so, thought he, that they are all malicious, and none weak, who are offended by the ceremonies. He himself describeth the weak whom we are forbidden to scandalise, to be such as are weak in knowledge and certainty of the truth. Now there are many who are in this respect weak, scandalised by the ceremonies. But I say, moreover, that his description is imperfect; for there are some who know the truth, and that certainly, who are, notwithstanding, to be accounted weak, in regard of the defect of that prudence which should guide, and that stability which should accompany all their actions, in the particular usage of such things as they know certainly, in their general kind, to be agreeable to truth and righteousness. Such Christians are impeded by the ceremonies from going on in their Christian course so fast as otherwise they would, if not also made to waver or stumble. And thus are they properly scandalised according to my fifth proposition. _Si quis nostra culpa vel impingit, vel abducitur a recto cursu, vel tardatur, c.u.m dicimur offendere_, saith Calvin.(423) _Porro scandalum est dictum vel factum quo impeditur evangelii cursus, cujus ampliationem et propagationem, totius vitae nostrae scopum esse oportet_, saith Martyr.(424)

2. It is a fault to give offence even to the strong, or else Peter was not to be blamed for giving offence to Christ, Matt. xvi. 23. Yea, it is a fault to offend the very malicious by things that are not necessary, as I have proved in my twelfth proposition.

_Sect._ 17. Secondly, saith he, all those Scriptures condemn only the scandal of the weak which is made at that time when we know they will be scandalised.

_Ans._ 1. If he speak of certain and infallible knowledge, none but G.o.d knoweth whether a man shall be scandalised or not, by that which we are to do. He must mean, therefore, of such knowledge as we can have of the event of our actions, and so his answer bringeth great damage to his own cause.

Formalists know that then weak brethren have been of a long time scandalised by the ceremonies, and they hear them professing that they are yet scandalised, and how then can they but know that scandal will still follow upon that which they do?

2. Albeit they know not that their brethren will be scandalised by the ceremonies, yea, albeit then brethren should not be scandalised thereby, yet because the ceremonies are appearances of evil, inductive to sin, and occasions of ruin, scandal is given by them, whether it be taken by their brethren or not, according to my fourth and fifth propositions.

_Sect._ 18. Thirdly, saith Paybody, all those Scriptures condemn only that offence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him who is at liberty and not bound, they speak not of using or refusing those things, as men are tied by the commandment of authority. Where he laboureth to prove that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent is a better duty than the pleasing of a private person in such a thing.

_Ans._ 1. I have proved heretofore, that the commandment of authority cannot make the use of a thing indifferent to be no scandal, which otherwise were scandal.

2. I have also proved in the first part of this dispute, that an ecclesiastical const.i.tution cannot bind us, nor take away our liberty in the using or not using of a thing indifferent in itself, except some other reason be showed us than the bare authority of the church. As touching the civil magistrate's place and power to judge and determine in things pertaining to the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, we shall see it afterwards, and so shall we know how far his decisions and ordinances in this kind of things have force to bind us to obedience.