Chapter 45

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 God’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 passive 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 passive 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 passive, 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 passive 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 passive, 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 passive, 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 cum 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 God, 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 damnable superstitions, very plain and undeniable appearances of much evil.

Now Papists confirm many of their superstitions 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 mass-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 assumption 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 superstitions by the English ceremonies. But I answer: 1. If it were so, yet forasmuch as Papists draw them to a confirmation of their superstitions, 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 washing 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: Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt_. Mark _rapiuntur_. 2. The ceremonies do indeed greatly countenance those superstitions 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 bastard 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 nobis 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 worship; 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 redditæ, 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 ecclesiæ, 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 præter ipsius spem id acciderat_, and it fell forth only _ex accidenti et inopinato, ac præter intentionem ipsius_. M. Ant. de Dominis(396) confuteth him well: _Est scandalum et cum 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 godly 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 shift 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 damnabit._(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 superstitious 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 damned, 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.

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 circumstances, 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 God’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 cuma bonas intempestive factas, etiam committi possit_.

_Sect._ 11. In the third place, we will look what weapons of war Dr Forbesse produceth in his _Irenicum_,(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 worshipping the bread, and worshipping before the bread, nor discern how to make Christ the passive object of that worship and the bread the active, and how to worship Christ in the bread, and make the worship relative from the bread to Christ, are, by his example, induced to bread-worship, when they perceive bowing down before the consecrated bread in the very same form and fashion wherein Papists are seen to worship 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 Titus circumcised, were they not malicious? Did they not urge circumcision as necessary? Held they it not unlawful not to circumcise Titus? Yet did the Apostle abstain because they were to be scandalised, that is, made worse and more wicked calumniators by the circumcising of Titus, 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 superstition, 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 worship, 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 compass of co-adoration or relative worship, 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 superstition about apparel in divine worship, began first among the French bishops, unto whom Cælestinus 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 superstitions; 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 Cælestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty which tended to superstition, 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 God, 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 constitutions 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 superstition, and to fall into sundry gross abuses in religion, others are made to use them doubtingly, and so damnably. And how many who refuse them are animated to use them against their consciences, and so to be damned? 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 constitution, 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 constitution, 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 constitution 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, cum 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 God 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 constitution 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 worship of God, 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.

3. He should have proved that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty than abstaining from that which scandaliseth many Christians. He should not have opposed pleasing and scandalising (for perhaps a man is most scandalised when he is most pleased), but edifying and scandalising, according to my first proposition. Now, will anybody except Paybody say, that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent, out of which scandal riseth, is a better duty than forbearing for the edification of many Christian souls, and for shunning to scandalise them. This we must take to be his meaning, or else he saith nothing to the purpose.

_Sect._ 19. His fourth answer is, that all those scriptures condemning scandal, must needs especially condemn that which is greatest. Peter and his companions coming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandal; either of the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, which was the less, or of the Gentiles in refusing their company, as if they had not been brethren, which was far the greater. Now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for the avoiding the lesser scandal, he and his companions fell into the greater.

_Ans._ 1. He is greatly mistaken whilst he thinks that a man can be so straitened betwixt two scandals, that he cannot choose but give the one of them. For, _nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pro homini sive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare_.(425)

2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evils, must be understood of evils of punishment, not of evils of sin, as I showed before,(426) so that he is in a foul error whilst he would have us to choose the least of two scandals.

3. As for the example which he allegeth, he deceiveth himself to think that Peter had given scandal to the Jews by his eating with the Gentiles. _Cum Gentibus cibum capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana_, say the Magdeburgians;(427) but when certain Jews came from James, he withdrew himself, fearing the Jews, and so _quod ante de libertate Christiana aedificarat, rursus destruebat_, by eating, then, with the Gentiles, he gave no scandal, but by the contrary he did edify. And farther, I say, that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for shunning of two great scandals; the one of the Gentiles, by compelling them to Judaise; the other of the Jews, by confirming them in Judaism, both which followed upon his withdrawing from the Gentiles; so that by his eating with the Gentiles no scandal could be given, and if any had been taken, it was not to be cared for. Wherefore there was but one scandal which Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did give, and for which Paul apprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of themselves from the Gentiles, and keeping company only with the Jews, whereby both the Jews and the Gentiles were scandalised, because both were made to think (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the observation of the ceremonial law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody, is the confounding of _scandalising_ and _displeasing_. Peter, by eating with the Gentiles, perhaps had displeased the Jews, but he had thereby edified them, though the scandal which he gave them was by Judaising; _Judaizabat olim Petrus per dissimulationem_, saith Gerson:(428) by this Judaising through such dissimulation and double-dealing, as was his eating with the Gentiles first, and then withdrawing of himself, when certain Jews came; for keeping company with them only, he scandalised the Jews and confirmed them in Judaism, as Pareus noteth.(429) How then can it be said, that he that scandalised them by his eating with the Gentiles? For hereupon it should follow that there was a necessity of doing evil laid upon Peter, so that he behoved to offend the Jews either by his eating with the Gentiles, or by his not eating with the Gentiles; for he could not both eat with them and not eat with them. This is therefore plain, that if he scandalised the Jews by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I have showed, then had he not scandalised them, but edified them by his eating with the Gentiles.

I perceive he would say, that the scandal of non-conformity is a greater scandal than the scandal of conformity; and so he would make us gain little by our argument of scandal. He is bold to object,(430) “Where one is offended with our practice of kneeling, twenty, I may say ten thousand, are offended with your refusal.” O adventurous arithmetic! O huge hyperbole! O desultorious declamation! O roving rethoric! O prodigal paradox!

Yet, I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are displeased by our refusal, who can show us that any are thereby scandalised; that is, made worse and induced to ruin? This man is bold to say well to it; but we have solidly proved that scandal riseth out of kneeling and the rest of the ceremonies: let it be measured to us with the same measure wherewith we mete.

2. Put the case, that ten thousand were scandalised by our refusal, will it thereupon follow that our refusal is a greater scandal than their practising? Nay, then, let it be said that the cross of Christ is a greater scandal than a private man’s fornication, because both Jews and Greeks were offended at that, 1 Cor. i. 23; whereas, perhaps, a small congregation only is offended at this.

3. Our refusal is necessary, because of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies which we refuse, so that we may not receive them, but must refuse them, notwithstanding of any scandal which can follow upon our refusal. If he had aught to say against this answer, why is he silent? He might have found it at home. “Our forbearance of conformity (saith Parker(431)) is a necessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandal in us.”

4. Our opposites should do well to assail our argument of scandal before they propound any other argument against us; for so long as they make it not evident that the scandal of the ceremonies, which we object, is an active or faulty scandal, so long they cannot object the scandal of non-conformity to us; because if the scandal (which is to be avoided) be in their practising of the ceremonies, it cannot be in our refusing of them.

5. We know many are grieved and displeased with our non-conformity, yet that every one who is grieved is not by and by scandalised, the Bishop of Winchester teacheth as well as we. “Many times (saith he(432)) men are grieved with that which is for their good, and earnestly set on that which is not expedient for them.” But, in good earnest, what do they mean who say they are scandalised, or made worse by our non-conformity? for neither do we make them condemn our lawful deed as unlawful, nor yet do we animate them by our example to do that which, in their consciences, they judge unlawful. They themselves acknowledge that sitting is as lawful as kneeling; that the not-observing of the five holidays is as lawful as the observing of them; that the not-bishoping of children is as lawful as the bishoping of them. Do they not acknowledge the indifferency of the things themselves? Do they not permit many of their people either to kneel or to sit at the communion? Have not many of themselves taken the communion sitting in some places? Have not our Conformists in Scotland hitherto commonly omitted bishoping of children, and the ministration of the sacraments in private places? As for ourselves we make our meaning plain when we object the scandal of conformity; for many ignorant and superstitious persons are, by the ceremonies, confirmed (_expertus loquor_) in their error and superstition; so that now they even settle themselves upon the old dregs of popish superstition and formality, from which they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the ceremonies with a doubting and disallowing conscience, and to say with Naaman, “In this the Lord be merciful unto us if we err:” with my own ears have I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the ceremonies, for that they cannot see the lawfulness of them, yet are animated by the example of practising Conformists to do these things which, in their consciences, they condemn as unlawful (which were to sin damnably), and if they do them not, then is there no small doubting and disquietness, trouble, and trepidation, harboured in their consciences. And thus, one way or other, some weakening or deterioration cometh to us by the means of the ceremonies; and if any of our opposites dare think that none of us can be so weak as to stumble or take any harm in this kind, because of the ceremonies, we take God himself to witness, who shall make manifest the counsels of the heart, that we speak the truth, and lie not.

Finally, Let that be considered which divines observe to be the perpetual condition of the church,(433) namely, that as in any other family there are found some great, some small, some strong, some weak, some wholesome, some sickly, so still is there found such an inequality in the house of God, which is the church,—and that because some are sooner, some are later called, some endued with more gifts of God, and some with fewer.(434)

THE THIRD PART.

AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.