cause of a passive scandall so that he who scandalizeth another partaketh of and is accessary unto the sin of the party scandalized and we are not to partake of or be accessary unto the sins of any 1 Tim. 5. 22. We must have no fellowship with unfruitfull works of darknesse in any whomsoever 〈◊〉 5. 11. A third argument is fetcht from the effect of an active scandall 't is of a soule destroying nature so a kind of spirituall murther destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died Rom. 14. 15. for 〈◊〉 destroy not the 〈◊〉 of God vers 20. and who should not tremble at the guilt of the murther of any soul whatsoever for there is no soule so wicked but may for ought thou knowest be one of those for whom Christ shed his most divine and precious blood The last argument is taken from the Opposite of scandall Charity and its act beneficence We are to love all even our most malitious and persecuting enemies Matth. 5. 44. We are to do good unto all though especially to the houshold of saith Gal. 6. 10. We are to exercise patience and meeknesse towards even those that oppose themselves 2 Tim. 2. 14 15. And from this it will inevitably follow that we are to scandalize none Here we have usually objected the example of our Saviour who slighted the scandall of the Pharisees Matth. 15. 12 13 14. Then came his Disciples and said unto him knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying but he answered and said c. let them alone they be blind leaders of the blind c. The objection concernes onely the scandalizing of them in things indifferent and unto it I shall give an answer in the words of Parker part 2. part 57. If this be all the warrant we have not to forbeare in a thing indifferent for the malicious then have we no warrant at all because the scandall there not cared for is when the Pharisees are 〈◊〉 at his abstaining from their washings and his preaching of a true doctrine both of which were necessary duties for him to doe And when he defendeth his healing on sabbaths and his Disciples plucking eares upon this reason they are duties of necessity and charity he plainly insinuateth there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the malitious are scandalized In a second place I shall alleadge the Objection of the Schoolemen which by Gregory de Valentia is thus urged Tom. 3. disp 3. q. 18. punct 4. 〈◊〉 qui non ex ignorantiâ aut infirmitate sed ex malitiâ 〈◊〉 non laborat tali aliquâ necessitate spirituali cui non possit ipse sine ope alterius proximi facile prospicere mutando pravam suam voluntatem Ergo alter non tenetur tunc cum ali quo suo detrimento prospicere Pharisees the wicked that are scandalized out of meere malice and not out of ignorance or weaknesse are not in any such spirituall necessity or danger but that they can casily provide for the safety and indemnity of their soules without the help or assistance of others by changing their depraved will and therefore others are not bound to 〈◊〉 any detriment for the prevention of their scandall The answer unto this may easily be foreseen for here is nothing but Jesuiticall dictates that are alltogether proofelesse First Pharisees the wicked that are scandalized out of malice are in a greater spirituall necessity and danger then those that are scandalized out of ignorance or weaknesse for they are in the snare of the divill taken captive by him at his will 2 Tim. 2. 16. And therefore Secondly they are more unable to help themselves and prevent their own falling into sin for their hearts are altogether destitute of any gracious habits there is not in them the spirit a renewed principle to make head or resistance against the flesh the sinfull corruption of their natures there is need then of all help possible to keepe them from falling and all will be uneffectuall unlesse God also put in his helping hand Whereas he talkes that 't is an easy matter for a wicked and malitious man to provide against all danger and need of his soule by changing his perverse and naughty will this is a very grosse Pelagian conceite for it ascribes that unto the power of mans corrupt will which can be wrought only by the omnipotent grace of God By this time I hope the Reader is sufficiently satisfyed that the active scandals of the most wicked and malitious are not to be contemned But yet there remaineth a great difficulty in the point to be cleared and that is when an active-scandall is committed towards them in our duties and indifferencies First we actively scandalize them by our duties when they are not rightly circumstanced seasonably performed in due time and place when they are not expedient unto those ends for which God enjoyned them now when this is cannot be determined by any generall rule but every one must be left to be guided by his spirituall prudence and wisdome But for this hereafter I shall allot a peculiar digression by it selfe Secondly we actively scandalize them by our indifferencies when 't is probable they will occasion their passive scandall their falling into sin But now this generall rule is to be limited and I shall give you three limitations of it The first limitation this rule is to be understood when the use of our indifferencies is likely to prejudice and obstruct the propagation of the Gospell and the forbearance of them will in all probability conduce unto the advancement of the Credit of the Gospell and not otherwise ordinarily upon this account it would have been scandalous in Paul to have received maintenance from the Corinthians but t is now unscandalous in Ministers to accept and challenge that maintenance which is due unto them by the lawes of the land for a generall forbearance thereof now would soone be followed with the utter ruine of the Gospell A second limitation the sorementioned rule is to be understood when the forbearance of our indifferencies is likely to win upon the wicked and malitious so as to further their conversion and not otherwise when it onely exposeth unto their contempt scorne and derision 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. Though I be free from all men saith Paul 〈◊〉 have I made my selfe servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became as a few that I might gain the Jewes to them that are under the law as under the law that I might gaine them that are under the Law To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gaine them that are without Law To the weake became I as weake that I might gaine the weake I am made all things to all men that I might by all meanes save some Here t is very remarkable that Paul was made in things
none offence neither to 〈◊〉 nor Gentile which could not be done but by complying with them in indifferencies His president also answereth his precept To the Jewes he became a Jew to them that were under the Law as under the Law to them that were without the law as without the Law to the weake as weake 1 Cor. 9. 20 21 22. Amongst the Jewes he shaved his head made a vow Acts 18. 18. and circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. and yet amongst the Gentiles where these actions bore an appearance of Judaisme he withstood Peter for them even to his face Gal. 2. 11. There be three other instances in the former edition which because they are questionable I shall wholy wave and passe on unto the examination of my vaine triumph over the non-consormists wherein as the Proverb is I reckoned without mine host Former Edition After these limitations of the duty of abstinence from all appearance of evill I cannot but wonder at our irregulars misapplication of it They hence eagerly cry down the laudable discipline and lawfull Ceremonies of our Church What fearefull outcries do they make concerning their appearance of Idolatry superstition will-worship and Popery 〈◊〉 you see by the exceptions put to this precept as much too bi for our innocent and 〈◊〉 Ceremonies as Hercules shoe for a childs foot Indeed our Ceremonies for example the Surplice Crosse in Baptisme kneeling at the Lords Supper may have a materiall semblance with those that in Popery have been abused to Idolatry and superstition and so consequently taken materially in respect of their materialls may have an outward shew of Popish Idolatry or superstition but consider them as imposed by our Church and generally used by her members so they are formally differenced from those which Papists have applyed to Idolatrous ends and purposes For our Church publickly professeth a quite contrary use or application end or intention of them And externall actions have their specification and consequently distinction from their end and intention from it they take their species or kind and accordingly are distinguished Now since all Popish whether superstitious or idolatrous abuses of our Ceremonies are publickly disclaimed and their right use explained who can justly imagine any shew of Popery in them An Israelite was not to be smitten for an Egyptian because for a while he once sojourned in Egypt if afterward he had his constant abode in Canaan The garment spotted with the flesh was no longer to be hated than spotted being once washed it might againe be used Our Ceremonies were defiled in Egypt in Popery with superstitiom and Idolatrie but our Church God be praised hath washed them from both in her publique and professed use of them And therefore now they stand above either calumnie or suspicion Examination First our non-conformists will tell us that there was betwixt our Ceremonies and those of the Papists even a formall conformity 〈◊〉 and in part though not totall and adequate For though our Prelates disavowed many nay most of those superstitious and idolatrous ends unto which the Papists applyed our Ceremonies yet they still prosessed one end and intention of the Papists in the use of them to wit mysticall signification and this to be a Popish and superstitious end the non-conformists prove at large in their books Secondly a materiall conformity in Ceremonies carrieth many times a reall appearance of evill and scandalizeth actively It doth not appeare that the Altar which Uriah erected was formally the same with that Ahaz saw at Damascus that it had the same use and intention the worship of a false God The text mentioneth only a materiall conformity unto it and for this reason 't is condemned 2 King 16. 10 11. Peters conformity with the Jewes Gal. 2. was only materiall not formall for a Jewish end and purpose and yet t is blamed by Paul as guilty of an active scandall vers 11 12 13 14. Suppose a timerous Protestant in Spaine or Italy go to Masse and there bow before their breaden God not out of any intent to honour the Idol but only for preservation of his life his presence and bowing will only be materially the same with that of Papists but will any man think that this can acquit him from the sin of Idolatry Indeed Aelian var. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 21. excuseth Ismenias a Thobane from adoring the King of Persia because though he stooped downe before him yet it was not to worship him but to take up a ring that he had for the nonce let fall at his feet but no rationall man will admit of this his apology because this stooping in common use was the adoration of the King and interpreted to be such by the King himselfe and by the spectators Some thinke that though a different end and intention from Pagans Iewes and Hereticks in the use of their Ceremonies cannot legitimate them and free them from scandall yet that profession of such a different end and intention is sufficient for such a purpose But First the primative Church was of a different opinion The story of Origen is well knowen how he delivered Palme to those that offered it to the image of Serapis with this expression of his intention come and receive the boughes not of the image but of Christ. Yet was he therefore censured as a worshipper of that Idoll Secondly if this were true then we might lawfully use circumcision and the passeover so we disclaime the Jewish end of them to signifie Christ to come and professe that our intention was by them only to signify that Christ was allready come in the flesh Thirdly a materiall conformity with Papists in their Ceremonies hath nourished in them a hope of our coming up to them but not inclined them in any degree unto us for they have still protested that they would not step so much as one foot to meere with us and if my memory faile me not there is some such thing in Franciscus Sancta Clara. Indeed experience hath alwayes shewed how uneffectuall a meanes such a complyance hath been for the conversion of Papists Whom of them hath it ever wonne over unto the Protestant party but Spalato and others of the like temper who as Mr Fuller speaks of some Italians that pretended unto true conversion were neither good dough nor good bread but like Ephraim a Cake not turned There was a greater materiall conformity with Popish Ceremonies in Cathedrals then in other Churches but how thin a harvest of converts can they produce Nay 't is observed by some that neare them Popery thrived more then in other places I heard a Knight of the royall party once affirme in the presence of many persons of worth that he thought there were more Papists in Wells then in all the County of Somerset besides and yet of late yeares that Cathedrall outstripped most in England for Ceremoniousnesse In the times immediately preceding the late troubles not only the former Ceremonies of the Common-prayer
utrumque indifferens ambulare capitis naribus purgamenta projicere sputis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc nec bonum nec malum est sivè enim feceris sivè non feceris nec 〈◊〉 habebis nec injustitiam Aristotle and Sextus Empyricus give in their verdict for the truth of this assertion whose sayings the reader may peruse at large in Raynaudus moral disciplin distinct 4. quaest 1. Art 3. num 39. pag. 550. There is but one Considerable 〈◊〉 which I shall briefly propound and answere Whatsoever agreeth unto the species the sort or kind of a thinge agreeth unto all individuals contained under it And therefore if there be humane actions that be indifferent secundum speciem according to their kind the Individuals of such actions are indifferent too which will be opposed in a third Conclusion That which doth agree unto a thing 〈◊〉 se the opposite thereof cannot agree unto it either per se or per Accidens And therefore if some actions are per se of themselves indifferent it is impossible for the Individuals of such actions to be morally good or evill Unto this obiection Durand answereth by 〈◊〉 of a twofold sense of this expression An act is indifferent secundum speciem according to it's kind The sirst is that indifferency is of the specifick nature of such an act And this sense which is the sense of the objection is false for then it 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any individuals of such an act not to be indifferent But now there is a second sense of the expression that the specifick nature of such an action doth not involve or imply in it's notion morall either goodnesse or ilnesse But is equally and indifferently abstracted from both And this sense is true It is not of the specificke nature of many actions to be determinately good or determinately evill though they may be either by circumstances As for the confirmation which is added The answer unto it is usually as followeth A thing may be said to agree unto another per se either positively 〈◊〉 negatively 1. 〈◊〉 when it is predicated in primo or secundo modo 〈◊〉 per se when it is either an essentiall predicate or proper passion And thus it agreeth unto man to be a sensitive creature to be indued with the powers of understanding willing laughing c And in this sense indifferency doth not agree per se unto any humane voluntary actions for then it would agree unto them alwaies and in all places so that it would be utterly impossible for the individuals of such actions to be morally either good or bad 2. Negatively When a thing of it selfe is not such although by accident it may be such And thus we may say of a man that per se he is not white he is not blacke he is not tawny he is not of an olive colour or the like because each of these colours considered separately are accidentall unto the nature of man considered in the generall and in it selfe And yet the individuals of the nature of man may some of them be white some blacke some tawny some of an olive colour or the like Even so we may say of divers voluntary rationall actions of man that per se considered as devested from all circumstances they are indifferent morally neither good nor bad because morall goodnesse and badnesse is accidentall unto the nature of such actions considered in themselves and yet the individuals of such actions are all of them either good or evil 〈◊〉 shall be cleared by the next conclusion unto which before we proceed let us make some application of this second conclusion Against this doctrine of Indifferency there are two failings one in the 〈◊〉 Another in the excesse There are First some that faile in the defect who know not the full extent of indifferency and so either impose as necessary or condemne as sinsull things that are in their owne nature indifferent Thus in the primitive Romish Church there were some new converts who abstained from swines flesh and other meats prohibited by the ceremoniall law as unlawfull The use of which yet was indifferent and lawfull under the Gospell I know and am perswaded saith Paul by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing uncleane of it selfe Rom. 14. 14. Thus also amongst the Corinthians there were some weake Christians that branded for Communion and fellowship with Idolaters all eating of things offered unto idols Though bought in the market or eaten at private meetings In both which yet Paul pronounceth in generall there was no unlawfulnesse 1. Cor. 10. 25 27. Amongst us there are divers persons that are doubtlesse well affected in matters of Religion and yet are too rigid in censuring as sinnes divers innocent and harmlesse recreations This is an errour in and consequently a blemish unto the understanding Paul calls it a weaknesse in the faith Rom. 14. 1. that is an imperfection in point of knowledge and that privative or blameable For the faith and conscience of indifferent things is never indifferent we are never to judg a thing indifferent to be either sinfull or necessary Our Saviours command John 7. 24. Judge righteous judgment may be extended unto things and actions as well as persons Therefore as we are not to call good evill or evill good so neither are we to call things indifferent either evill or necessary This is injuriously to straiten the grand Charter of our Christian liberty and presumptuously to make the narrow way to heaven narrower then ever God made it Besides it openeth a gappe unto many mischiefes it filleth the Church of God with needlesse and endlesse disputes it perplexeth the minds of many conscientious people with unnecessary and unprofitably scruples it causeth many bitter and uncharitable censures and occasioneth many dangers In the believing Jewes that lived in the Church of Rome in Pauls time there was but a little mistake touching things indifferent meats and daies but how pernicious was the sequele hereof Hereupon the strong despised the weake and the weak judged the strong Rom. 14. And this was a great disturbance unto the peace of the Church and a great hinderance unto the comfortable communion of the Saints 2. Against this doctrine of indifferency there are some secondly that faile in the excesse who make things necessary or sinfull to be but indifferent There be some that hold observation of the Lords day preaching of the word in distinction from meer reading of it to be no ordinances of God but things meerly indifferent Erastians affirme that Church Government and Ecclesiasticall censures are onely matters of indifferency The Heathens in the Apostles times generally ranked fornication amongst things indifferent The like estimate some of the Corinthians had of eating things offered to Idols in the midst of an Idols temple at a religious feast of that Idol which was a palpable communicating with Devils and therefore a fact in it's own nature unlawfull And some Travailers that professe themselves Protestants have as
incentives unto sinne 2. Charity towards others should put a restraint upon the use of our Christian liberty in things indifferent and make us to forbeare all indifferent things whatsoever that may destroy the soules weaken or wound the 〈◊〉 of others 1 Cor. 8. 12. Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh but by love serve one another Gal. 5. 13. Where the Antithesis implied in the particle but plainly sheweth that we use our liberty for an occasion unto the flesh if we do not by love serve one another in the exercise thereof Knowledg 〈◊〉 up but charity edifieth 1 Cor. 8. 1. that is a firme and full knowledg of our liberty in things indifferent ifit be separated from Charity is apt to swell the mind with pride and make men to despise or set at naught weak doubting and scrupulous Brethren But Charity edifieth that is it is carefull to build up others as living stones in the spirituall house of God the Church It inclineth to promote their graces and gracious practises and to avoide whatsoever is of a destroying nature unto their soules that is every thing that may occasion their fall into sin Now that indifferent things may sometimes be of an unedifying and destroying nature the Apostlè affirmeth 1 Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawfull for me but all things edisie not do not build up our brethren in truth faith and holinesse do not farther them in their Religion charity and justice for that the Apostle speaks of the edification of others is plaine by what followeth in the next verse Let no man seek his own that is only but every man anothers wealth that is spirituall the edification and salvation of anothers soule And therefore indifferent things are to be forborne in case of scandall when they prove to be of a destructive nature unto the soules of men when they weaken their graces hinder their duties and lead them into sin This course the Apostle prescribes unto the Romanes in the case of things legally uncleane before the coming of Christ. Those that were strong in the faith among them well instructed in the doctrine of Christian liberty knew very well that the legall uncleanesse of meates and drinkes all Jewish festivalls and fasts were removed by Christs death and that nothing was now of it selfe uncleane but all things indifferent and lawfull yet the Apostle would have them in the use of this point of Christian liberty not to scandalize those that are weak in the faith that is such as being newly wonne from Judaisme to Christianity were as yet uninstructed about the cessation of Ceremonialls Rom. 14. 13. Judge this rather that no man put a stumbling block or occasion to fall in his brothers way that is in the use of meats and drinkes that were before the Gospell Levitically uncleane and neglect of Jewish Festivalls and fasts the observation of which was for a while indifferent untill the interrement of the Ceremoniall law 〈◊〉 however the words run generally yet if we look to the coherence backwards the foregoing part of the chapter speaks onely of such things meates drinkes and daies and if we look to the coherence forwards it speaks onely of such things meats and drinks vers 15. Destroy not him with thy meate for whom Christ died ver 17. for the kingdome of God is not meat and drinke v. 20. for meate destroyes not the worke of God it is evill for that man who eateth with offence It is 〈◊〉 not simply in it selfe but accidentally by scandall And therefore I shall conclude that the place is in a speciall manner appliable against scandalizing by abuse of liberty in things indifferent Interpreters ghesse at three things wherein the practise of the strong amongst the Romanes might scandalize the weake 1. It might unsettle them in and distast them against the Christian Religion for they might hereupon think it to be contrary unto the Law of Moses which they so highly reverenced and so at last it might occasion their relapse unto Judaisme 2. It might embolden them to sinne against their consciences by eating that which they thought to be uncleane And 3dly it might grievously exassperate them and provoke them to powre out many a bitter uncharitable and sinfull censure upon the actions and state of those that were strong in the faith In vers 21. The Apostle proceedeth to inlarge his doctrine touching this particular beyond the controversy that occasioned this his discourse for as Estius well noteth He teacheth that to avoid the scandall and offence of our Brethren we are to abstaine not onely from things prohibited by the law but also from things not prohibited from flesh wine and any indifferent thing whatsoever It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drinke wine nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weake It is good that is it is morally good 1. Good in regard of God a thing very acceptable and pleasing unto him 2. Good in regard of our Brethren profitable and conducing unto their edification 3. Good in regard of our selves a duty that God requireth of us And from this we may inferre that the contrary hereof is by the rule of contraries morally evill it is displeasing unto God hurtfull unto the soule of thy Brother and sinfull in thy selfe In vers 22. The Apostle prevents an objection of the strong Hast thou faith have it to thy selfe before God He speaks not of a faith saith Chrysostome that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of doctrines and tenets to wit such as are fundamentall and necessary unto salvation but of a faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the subject matter here handled meats and dayes things indifferent a beliefe touching their lawfulnesse the strong amongst the Romans might be ready to obiect that their knowledg and perswasion of their Christian liberty in the matter controverted amounted unto a Divine faith for it was built upon a divine Revelation Each of them might say as Paul did above vers 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is uncleane of it selfe The Lord Jesus hath taught me this liberty now is it not fit that my practise should be agreeable unto my beliefe that I should exercise my knowledg and act according unto my judgment seeing it is so well grounded why should I forbeare the doing of that which I know to be lawfull Unto this the Apostles answer is that they should not make a vaine ostentation or unseasonable discovery of their faith that is knowledg and perswasion unto the offence of their Brother the hazard of his soule but rather in such a case conceale it and content themselves with Gods knowledg and approbation of it who seeth in secret and will reward openly Matth. 6. Hast thou faith have it to thy selfe before God This prudent and charitable management of Christian liberty the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians unto in their carriage towards their Brethren touching things offered unto Idols 1
charity as Aquinas gives the reason 2. 2dae q. 43. a. 7. beginneth ever at home making a man cheifly desire and endeavour the salvation of his ownsoule and consequently more sollicitous to avoid sinne in himselfe then to prevent it in other I may not then omit or neglect necessary duties because to some they seem but needlesse niceties I must not fly true holinesse and the power of 〈◊〉 because unto the world it appeares but braine sick peevishnesse and an irrationall precisenesse others errour should not be seconded and countenanced with mine impiety and disobedience Scandalum nisi fallor non bonae rei sed 〈◊〉 exemplum est aedificans ad delictum Bonae res neminem scandalizant nisi malam mentem Si 〈◊〉 est modestia verecundia 〈◊〉 gloriae soli Deo captans placere agnoscant malum suum qui de tali bono scandalizantur Quod 〈◊〉 si incontinentes dicant se à continentibus scandalizari continentia revocanda est Tertullian Here it will not be an unprofitable nor much impertinent digression to give you the summe of what Thomas and his Interprerers say upon this Question An bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda Not to mention their rotten distinction between matters of counsell and matters of precept we will only out of them take notice that there is a difference between 〈◊〉 of a precept and a temporary partiall or occasionall 〈◊〉 of the matter commanded by a precept No precept whatsoever whether of the Law of Nature or else but positive is for eschewing the scandall of any whether weake or malitious to be 〈◊〉 broken or transgressed And a precept is transgressed whensoever what is enjoyned in it is omitted at such a time and in such a case when all the particular circumstances which we ought to regard being considered we are tyed to all performance of it But yet however upon emergency of scandall that which is commanded by some precepts may pro hic nunc in some times and at some places be omitted may for a while be forborne untill the scandall taken thereby can be removed by information or instruction or untill the circumstances of the scandals be some way or other changed Promulgation of a truth and Christian reproofe are duties commanded by God and yet are to be sometimes abstained from for scandals taken by not onely the weake but all malitious Reprove not a scorner lest he hate thee Prov. 9. 8. Speake not in the eares of a foole for he will despise the wisdome of thy words Prov. 23. 9. 〈◊〉 not that which is holy unto the dogges neither cast ye your pearles before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turne againe and rent you Matth. 7. 6. To explaine this farther recourse must be had unto that old and golden rule 〈◊〉 praecepta semper obligant 〈◊〉 ad semper Affirmative precepts do alwaies bind but not to alwaies so 〈◊〉 we are not bound to performe alwaies what they enjoine but only loco tempore debitis when we have due time and place Now as by the intercurrency of other circumstances so especially by occurrence of the scandall of weake brethren there may not be opportunity and seasonablenesse of doing what we are urged unto by some affirmative precepts and so those precepts may pro his nunc cease to be obligatory For when the obligations of two precepts seeme to meete together at the very same time that which is of greater obligation tieth us and so consequently we are for the present freed from the obligation of the other Now the negative precept of eschewing the scandall of the weake is more obligatory than many affirmative precepts and therefore to use the words of Malderus contingit aliquando 〈◊〉 naturale affirmativum hic nunc non obligare propter concursum negativi 〈◊〉 naturalis de vitando scandalo pusillorum For example vindicative justice binds a magistrate to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Charity on the other side obligeth him to hinder as much as he can the scandall of the weake now Charity is a virtue of an higher note and nature than vindicative justice the precept belonging unto charity hinder as much as you can the scandall of the weake doth more strictly tie us than that pertaining unto vindicative justice punish the guilty And therefore if it be probable that a great and spreading scandall will be taken at the punishing of delinquents a Magistrate may not transgresse against justice and yet deferre the execution thereof But so manifold and different are the degrees of obligation in affirmative precepts such is the variety of circumstances appertaining unto the matters commanded by those precepts and constancy of alterations about those circūstances as that I do not see how any unvariable rules or constant directions can be given for Christian carriage in this case For particulars then every man is to be left unto the guidance of his spirituall prudence and wisdome which is to direct him in a right apprehension and discretion of circumstances to define the opportunity and seasonablenesse of practising what is commanded by affirmative precepts and to compare them and the precept of eschewing the scandall of the weake together and thereupon to determine which is hic nunc most obligatory or doth most strictly tye us to the obedience of it as being of greater moment Only in the generall wee may safely say thus much that whereas wee have said that for shunning the scandall of the weake we may forbeare the practise of things commanded by affirmative precepts Hic nunc in some places and at some times it must allwayes be taken with this proviso that there be not incurred a greater and more perilous scandall by forbearance then would probably be occasioned by practise of the thing 〈◊〉 which is done when either first more are scandalized by the forbearance than in all likely-hood would be at the practise or else secondly when the body in generall the Church and Common wealth or the greatest and 〈◊〉 part of either is scandalized at the sorbeareance and onely some few particular private persons stumble at the practise or else thirdly when others take 〈◊〉 by this partiall and temporary forbearance of what is commanded by affirmative precepts to contemne the precepts 〈◊〉 as being by this our carriage induced to beleive that we verily despise them and do not so much for a while forbeare as utterly disclaime the practise of what they command Thus you see that according to the common opinion of the schoolemen things commanded may in case of scandall for a while be omitted or forborne but Vasquez and 〈◊〉 dissent from them in this particular the explication and confirmation of their opinion I will propound and then breifely passe my censure thereon Becanus to make way for his opinion premiseth that there is a difference between naturall precepts for some saith he bind simply and alwaies whatsoever circumstances
intervene and their obligation never ceaseth such like are those that forbid lying perjury hatred of God Idolatry c for these facts are so intrinsecally sinfull as that they cannot by any circumstances be made lawfull others now bind not simply and absolutely but with certaine circumstances and therefore they bind as long as those circumstances remaine they cease to bind when those circumstances are changed Such is the precept forbidding to kill for that 〈◊〉 with these circumstances that we kill not by our private authority except in case of necessary defence Take away these circumstances and it binds not for it is lawfull to kill upon the command of authority or in our necessary defence such also is the precept of eschewing scandall for however it be dictated by the law of nature yet it obligeth not absolutè quomodocunque but with certaine circumstances and one circumstance necessarily requisite to make it bind us is that there occurre not any other precept either naturall or positive The reason is because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himselfe than to prevent it in his brethren And therefore that precept which is given us for the prevention of sin in others is but of a secondary obligation Now the precept of eschewing scandall is imposed onely for the hindring of sin in others and therefore doth not tie us when there occurreth any other precept which is given for the avoiding of sinne in our selves But it may be objected that the precept of shunning scandall is of the Law of nature and therefore is more obligatory than those precepts that are but positive Unto this 〈◊〉 answereth that a naturall precept is more obligatory than that which is 〈◊〉 caeteris paribus that is if each precept both that which is naturall and that which is positive be primarily referred unto the furthering of our own salvation unto the preventing of sin in our selves But now if on the other side the primary scope of the naturall precept be to hinder sin in others as it is in the precept of scandall and the principall end of the positive precept be to shun sin in our selves then that precept which is positive doth more deeply bind us than that which is naturall Againe secondly it may be objected that if the obligation of the naturall precept of eschewing scandall ceaseth upon occurrence of but a positive precept why then it seems this positive precept detracts or derogates from the naturall precept of avoiding scandall as being of greater force and validity In no wise onely it takes away a circumstance requisite to make the precept of avoiding scandall obligatory quare cum dicimus saith Vasquez non esse omittendum praeceptum positivum 〈◊〉 vitandum scandalum proximi non dicimus praeceptum naturale derogari 〈◊〉 positivo tanquam fortiori sed dicimus occursu praecepti positivi 〈◊〉 quandam circumstantiam necessariam ut 〈◊〉 praeceptum de vitando scandalo etiamsi naturale sit But all this labour would have been saved if the question had been rightly stated for whereas it is said that one circumstance necessarily requisite to make the precept of eschewing scandall bind us is that there occurre not any other precept either naturall or positive this is to be understood cum grano salis with this limitation in case such precepts bind all circumstances considered to the performance of what they enjoyne 〈◊〉 nunc at such a particular time and place for then omission of what they enjoine would be sinfull and we are not sinfully to omit any thing for prevention of scandall in our brother Unto the proofe of which the reason of Vasquez and 〈◊〉 may be applyed But the obligation of affirmative precepts is not universall ad 〈◊〉 but only loco tempore debitis and therefore what they enjoyne may sometimes in the case of scandall be prudéntly omitted but perhaps this which I say is all that Vasquez and 〈◊〉 aime at and then they have no adversary that I know of Every one will grant unto them that one circumstance necessarily requisite to make the precept of 〈◊〉 scandall bind us hic nunc in such a time and place is that there occurre not any other precept binding us to what it enjoyneth at that very instant time and place for it is evident unto all that upon occurrencie of such obligations though scandall ensue it would not be on our parts a culpable scandall an active scandall But it may be thought that I have staied too long upon this digression to returne therefore where we left Secondly if the action in which this appearance of evill is supposed to be be but indifferent why then the best direction that we can have will be from what the Apostle Paul writes unto the Romans chap. 14. and unto the 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8. and chap. 10. of converts amongst the Romans there were some strong and knowing ones that were well principled and so knew very well their deliverance from the yoake of the mosaicall Law and hereupon without any scruple did eat such meats as were prohibited thereby perhaps Swines flesh or the like Now at this their practise severall weak Christians who were as yet ignorant and uninstructed touching the latitude of their Christian liberty were in severall regards scandalized as I have shewen in a foregoing treatise But yet here the practise of the strong was a thing indifferent in it selfe vers 14. 20. and the appearance of evill to wit a prophane and irreligious contempt of the Law of Moses was only imaginary arising from the ignorance and errour of the weak who thought that Law of Moses to be still in sorce and unabrogated and the scandall consequent hereupon was only 〈◊〉 accidens flowing not from the nature of the action in it selfe but from the misapprehension of the weake and yet the Apostle blames the strong for scandalizing the weake and therefore in this their action though indifferent in it selfe there was an active scandall a scandall culpably given as well as taken The Apostle gives the same resolution unto the Corinthians concerning things offered unto Idols to eat them at the Pagan religious feast and in the temple of an Idoll carrieth a reall appearance of communion with and approbation of an Idolatrous worship of the Idoll and so is scandalous per se of it selfe and in its own nature 1 〈◊〉 8. 10. cap. 10. vers 20 21. But now to eat these same meats when sold and bought in the shambles or set before them in private meetings the Apostle resolves to be a thing lawfull and indifferent 1 Cor. 10. v. 25 26 27. And indeed it could not carry a reall but only an imaginary appearance of evill for they were the good creatures of God and so uncapable of any 〈◊〉 pollution and they had no religious use and so did not reflect any glance 〈◊〉 the least honour credit or countenance
divine Law of God and Nature Rom. 14. For indifferent dayes meates surpsice 〈◊〉 not him for whom Christ dyed All the Casuists and Schoolemen Navarra Sylvester Sanchez Raphael dela Torre Meratius Duvallius Thomas Scotus Bonaventura Suarez Uasquez Greg de valentia Albertus Richardus Biel Corduba Angelus Adrianus Alphonsus Becanus Yea and all the host of our Divines cry with Scripture that mercy and the precepts of love and of the Law of nature are more obligatory than sacrifice burnt offerings and Gods owne positive Lawes yea and that positive Lawes loose their obligatory power and cease to be lawes when the lawes of nature and necessary dutyes of mercy and love as not to murther our brother not to scandalize standeth in their way I might weary the Reader here with citations and be wilder my selfe also but it is a point of Divinity denyed by none at all 3. What we owe of Justice to our Superiours is indeed both a morall debt of obedience and a debt of Justice and law which Rulers may seeke by their place and exjure as Aristotle saith but this right is limited Rulers have no right to seeke absolute obedience but onely in the Lord not against charity And though the place of Rulers be authoritative yet their commanding power as touching the matter of what they injoyne is only 〈◊〉 and they cannot but in Gods place exact that which is Gods due and seing God himselfe if he should immediatly in his owne person Command he would not urge a positive commandement sarrè lesse the commandement of light and vaine Ceremonies against and beyond the precept of love not to destroy a soule for whom Christ dyed Ergò Superiours under God who borrow all their light from God cannot have a higher right than God hath 4. The comparison of a man who oweth 〈◊〉 to a Creditor and oweth moneyes to the poore is close off the way sor he is obliged to pay the Creditour first but the case 〈◊〉 is farre otherwise the debt of practising indifferent seathers and straws such as 〈◊〉 crossing wearing Surplice is neither like the dept owen to the poore nor to the Creditor For natures Law and Gods word 1. Cor. 10. 18. 19. maketh the Non-practise non-murthering obedience to God when the practise of indifferent things is a soule stumbling to the weake and the practising is but at ' its best obedience to a positive Law and ought to stoope and goe off the way and disappeare when natures Law murther not doth come in ' its way When the Doctors put Loyalty above Charity they suppose obedience to Commandements commanding scandalizing of soulès to be loyalty to Superiours which is questioned it being treason to the soveraigne of Heaven and Earth to destroy his Image it is taken as loyaltie by our Doctors but not proven to be loyaltie and so a vaine question here whether Loyalty be above Charity or not This dispute of scandall is annexed unto his divine right of Church Goverment which was published 1646. since that Dr. Sanderson 1656 as I shewed you but now propounds the argument a new with a great deale of triumph but without any considerable reinforcement and withall he takes no notice of Rutherford his answer from whence I gather that he never read it and indeed it is a thing very incident unto the greatest Schollars of that party to censure but never to reade their adversaries Thirdly to say something unto Dr. Sanderson as well as unto the Duplyers I must needs confesse that I am transported with a just admiration that so great a schollar should so extenuate as he doth the guilt of an active scandall for he makes the care of not giving offence to a brother to be a matter but of courtesy he cannot saith he justly say I do him wrong if I neglect it But first the Apostle Paul speakes another language in his account to make brethren to offend is to sin against them to wound their weake consciences and so to sin against Christ. 1 Cor. 8. 12. Compared with ver 11. 13. and Rom. 14. 15. 20. he resolves that 't is a destroying of a brother for whom Christ died a destroying of the worke of God in him whereupon Divines generally determine that 't is soule-murther Now in wounding the weake conscience of our brother in murthering his immortall soule there is doubtlesse some wrong committed against him not to destroy him for whom Christ dyed c. is more than a matter of meer courtesy unto him Secondly suppose the care of not giving offence be in respect of our brother but debitum charitatis yet in regard of God 't is 〈◊〉 justitiae a legall debt he may and doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Our Saviour thundereth a woe against such disobedience Woe to him through whom offences come Luk. 17. 1. and in the second verse this woe is aggravated by comparison with a very grievous punishment it were better for him that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea then that he should offend one of these little ones But to proceed'unto the second comparison on which I insisted out of Bishop Morton and Dr Sanderson a Comparison betwixt a scandall given to a Magistrate and a scandall given to one who is only a brother I demand whether or no the offence given to or taken by a Magistrate who is a brother and withall a Magistrate be not greater than that which is given to or taken by one who is only a brother an impartiall Judge will soone determine that the double relation of brother and Magistrate weigheth down the single and naked relation of a brother c. ut suprà For answer unto this distinguish we of a twofold acception of scandall Primary and Secundary First Primary and so t is an occasioning culpably the fall of another into sin Secondly Secundary and so 't is only the angring vexing displeasing of another This distinction premised the comparison may be understood either of the scandall of a Magistrate in a secundary acception with a scandall of one who is onely a brother in a secundary acception of the word too or else of the scandall of a Magistrate in a secundary acception with the scandall of a brother in a primary acception or 3. of the scandall of a Magistrate in a primary acception with the scandall of a brother in a primary acception also First if the Comparison be on both sides to be understood of scandall taken in a secondary sense there is no doubt but the scandall of the Magistrate is more dangerous than that of one who is only a brother for the wrath of the supreame Magistrate is as the Messengers of death Prov. 16. 14. as the roaring of a Lyon Prov. 19. 12. In indifferent things then it will be our safest course to anger a brother rather then to displease the Magistrate But this acception of scandall is impertinent unto our purpose and
instruction or else some opinion or practise whereunto they have been long accustomed may cast such a mist before their weak judgments as that they may not be able presently to apprehend the reason that is given of the action at which they stumble And we should so farre pitty the simplicity of such poore soules as to abstaine from that which scandalizeth them if by such abstinence there accrue not to us any great losse or inconvenience This is observed by Cajetan upon Aquinas 2. 2 dae q. 43. art 7. Ubi dicitur inquit articulo 7 mo de scandalo pusillorum si autem 〈◊〉 redditam rationem hujusmodi scandalum duret jam videtur ex malitiâ esse adverto quod author non assertivo verbo utitur sed opinativo dicendo jam videtur ex malitiâ esse potest siquidem contingere quod pusilli non sint capaces rationis redditae vel propter pristinam consuetudinem quae facit apparere dissonum quod veritati consonat vel propter rationem apud eos magis apparentem vel aliquod hujusmodi tunc quia malitia non facit scandalum sed ignorantia vel infirmitas quamvis reddita sit ratio cessandum est ab hujusmodi spiritualibus non necessariis Cajetan in 2. 2. 0. 43. c. Whereas it is said in the 7th article touching the scandall of the weak if after a reason given the scandall do still remain it seemeth to be of malice you must note the Author doth not use verbo assertivo sed opinativo saying it seemeth to be of malice For it may fall out that the weake are not capable of the reason that is rendred either by reason of his former Custome which maketh that to appeare discordant with the truth or for some reason which in his eyes is more apparent or by reason of some such like cause and then it is not out of malice that he is offended but out of ignorance and infirmity After Cajetan Petrus de Lorica doth roundly and fully expresse the matter Verum est saith he quod Cajetanus advertit scandalum pusillorum perseverare posse adhuc postquam reddita est ratio facti vel quia rationem non capiunt ob mentis tarditatem vel ob consuetudinem diu firmatam in quo casu docet Cajetanus 〈◊〉 esse actionem ex quâ scandalum accipiunt vel differendam donec ad saniorem mentem venerint Quòd solùm verum si actio omitti potest 〈◊〉 jacturâ nostrae utilitatis Si enim magna utilitas temporalis vel spiritualis interveniat contemni potest scandalum pusillorum postquam sufficienter admoniti sint In the next place I will recite a limitation of Gregory de Valentia that comes under this head and is very remarkable Having laid downe a rule that for avoiding the scandall of our neighbour which springeth either from his ignorance or weaknesse it behooveth us by the obligation of Charity to do or omit that which may be done or left undone without sin he afterwards puts this exception Est autem animadvertendum hanc regulam intelligi debere de omni eo quod sine peccato fieri aut omitti possit non quom docunque sed moralitèr attentâ suavitate quae est in jugo legum divinarum idest quod sine peccato fieri aut omitti possit sine maxima etiam aliqua penè intolerabili 〈◊〉 spectata quoque in hac conditione 〈◊〉 c And indeed me thinks he speaks reasonably For improbable seems it that the sweet moderation which is in the yoake of divine lawes should consist with so great a rigour as in all matters whatsoever not simply unlawfull to exact not only a brotherly but also a servile compliancy with every supposed weak one whose weaknesse may be but pretended by those that are willing to speake favourably of them For the humouring and contenting of every supposed weakling in all matters at which he takes offence I conceive not my selfe bound to endanger my life to hazard my estate and fortunes or to incurre any other great or notable inconvenience for that would truly be durus sermo an hard saying who were able to beare it But now against this may be objected the resolution of the Apostle 1 Cor. 8. 13. if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend flesh is of great expediency for the nourishment of mans life and yet Paul resolves upon a perpetuall abstinence therefrom in case of scandall Consequent and this example of Paul is obligatory unto all Christians For answer first this flesh may be understood only of such as was sacrificed unto Idols for words in scripture usually are to be restrained unto the subject matter spoken of and the meat and flesh here spoken of in the Context was such as had been offered unto an Idoll Secondly Calvin resolveth that 't is an Hyperbole est inquit hyperbolica locutio quia vix possibile est ut quis à carnibus totâ vitâ abstineat siremaneat in communi vitâ significat tamen se 〈◊〉 usurum potius suâ libertate quam ut fit insirmis offendiculo Nunquam 〈◊〉 licitus est usus nisi moderatus ad charitatis regulam This Hyperbole of Pauls you may Parallel with that of our Saviour 〈◊〉 5. 39 40 41. whosoever shall smite thee on thy right 〈◊〉 turne to him the other also And if any man will sue 〈◊〉 at the Law and take away thy coate let him have thy cloake also And 〈◊〉 shall compell thee to goe a mile goe with him twaine Thirdly Paul is to be understood only upon supposition that the Gospell should not be fully promulgated and brethren should remain uninstructed concerning the nature of Christian Liberty for usually 't is in this case only that to eat flesh involves in the guilt of an active scandall makes a brother to offend hence the Apostle exhorts the strong amongst the Romans to abstaine from meats forbiden by the Law of Moses for prevention of the scandall of the weake but amongst the Galathians and Colossians he dislikes such an abstinence and dehorts from it the reason of this his 〈◊〉 carriage was because the weak amonst the Romans were not fully taught the doctrine of Christian liberty the Galathians Colossians were Julian mistaking the Apostles doctrine of scâdall thought to make use of it for the starving of the Christias and therefore in Antiochia and in the region round about he dedicated all the sountaines to the Goddesses of the Gentiles and caused all the victuall that was to be sold in market places to be sprinkled with Ethnick holy waters thinking that some would be scandalized at the drinking of the water of such fountaines and at the eating of such victuall and that the Apostles doctrine obliged all to forbeare any thing in the 〈◊〉 of scandall never-thelesse Christians without scruple of conscience dranke of the water that was in the
that the omission of such ceremonies as ours doth inserre 〈◊〉 the Doctor and all his party can never make good You shall have my good leave instead of necessarily to place truly or convincingly Voeiferations I have heard many against the undecency of Gods worship and service amongst 〈◊〉 and when I have called for proof 〈◊〉 have been told amongst other things that they Baptised without the 〈◊〉 that they put up prayers unto God 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 but that 〈◊〉 is undecently 〈◊〉 where such toyes as these are omitted you may stoutly affirme but can never prove by so much as one convictive 〈◊〉 the word necessarily may 〈◊〉 very well be inserted in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the ignorant and prooflesse dictates of some learned men Ignorant men may 〈◊〉 and learned men may 〈◊〉 that the omission of our ceremonies 〈◊〉 infer indecency but this surmise and dictate can never be made good by argument 2. In Logick a necessary inference is opposed unto that 〈◊〉 is follacious as also that which is but probable and contingent and therefore I wonder why you should quarrell at the word necessarily for doe you think in earnest that decency implyes such customes the omission of which doth sophistically or at the best onely probably inserre undecency you cannot I know harbour so 〈◊〉 and irrational a thought and therefore you must say as I doe that decency here implyeth onely such customes the omission of which necessarily inferre undecency 3. When you say that my rule is in a manner proper to those customs which the Law of at least laps'd Nature prescribes that limitation in a manner is a back-door out of which how farre you may run I know not and therefore untill you somewhere make a stand I shall not run after you 4. Whereas you fasten upon me this assertion that decency here implyeth onely such customes which are naturally decent viz. prescribed immediately by the Law of Nature and so 〈◊〉 omission of them naturally indecent you have for this no colour but that which you take from the word necessarily and how weak a ground this is for such an imputation you must needs 〈◊〉 when you remember what I now told you that accessarily here is opposed unto fall ciously and probably Dr. 〈◊〉 himself in the dispute about humane ceremonies pag. 58. confesseth that comelinesse in the very place of the Apostle containeth all naturall and civill handsomness and in his Reply to Mortons general Defence c. cap. 3. sect 28. he acknowledgeth the womens vailes 1 Cor. 11. to be an instance of this decency for by the example of it he concludes that other Churches may be directed so farre just as the Apostles rule stretcheth 1 Cor 14. 40. Let all things be done 〈◊〉 when Bishop Morton desired to know whether this matter were not a thing indifferent his answer is it is indifferent in the general nature of it yet at that time and in that place they sinned that did otherwise 〈◊〉 before Paul or any of their overseers gave them charge about it By this his answer it is apparent that he did not think it dictated by Nature unto the Corinthians before any custome had recommended it unto them As for my own part you shall have here my frank concession that decency here implyeth even that decency which is introduced by civill custome provided 1. That it be consuetudo rationabilis for no other custome can have the force and 〈◊〉 of a law and if you or any other can bring any arguments that it was consuetudo rationabilis which introduced our ceremonies they shall have God willing an answer 2. That the omission of it renders Gods worship undecent the equity of this limitation appeareth from this reason because the Apostles command of decency is not violated but by undecency This is at large set down in Ames his dispute about humane ceremonies pag. 77 78. Lastly your and my learned friend Mr Barlow resolveth and proveth Exercit Metaph. p. 29. every morall evill every evill of sin to be against the law of Nature if not proximè and immediatè yet mediatè ex interventu legis positivae now the undecency here prohibited by the Apostle is a morall evill a sin malum culpae therefore 't is at least mediately against the Law of Nature Your great and learned 〈◊〉 pag. 95. of his Ecclesiastical Politie saith that this rule of the 〈◊〉 is an edict of Nature a Canon of that Law which is written in all mens hearts the Church had for ever no lesse then now stood bound 〈◊〉 observe it whether the Apostle had mentioned it or no. And hereupon I shall infer that if you or your party doe not prove or make good that the administration of Baptisme without the Crosse that Preaching Praying without the Surplice is against the Law of nature in some sense at least mediately he is utterly 〈◊〉 by Mr. Hooker his interpretation of ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or notion of decency and I doe not desire to live so long as to see such a proof as this made Dr. Hammond sect 15. This is indeed his meaning which though somewhat darkned in that his expression will appear but consequent to the two things which he hath premised in this matter from Amesius his notion of decency p. 64. in marg 1. that 〈◊〉 requires not that any sacred things be instituted de 〈◊〉 but onely that those things which are instituted by God be used in that 〈◊〉 which is agreeable to the dignity of them 2. That as order so decency belongs to civil offices as well as sacred things in which indecorum est vitium oppositum debito illi modo qui 〈◊〉 ad corum justum finem usum consequendum 〈◊〉 is a vice opposed to that due manner which is 〈◊〉 to the obtaining the just end and use of those things Now if in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 the mode he speaks of as agreeable to the dignity of those things which are 〈◊〉 be it self-supposed by him to be 〈◊〉 by men then must he acknowledge humane 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 ceremonies which being so contrary to his design I must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him but rather 〈◊〉 as the sacred things 〈◊〉 instituted by 〈◊〉 so the mode which is consentaneous to their dignity is instituted 〈◊〉 God also and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is decent in sacris which is not so instituted And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the second 〈◊〉 that of civill 〈◊〉 For that indecency which is a vice or sin must be 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Law of Gods and so also that which is 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 manner which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is necessary either necessitate medii or praecepti also to obtaining a just end this sure is more than the omission of an indifferent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may or may not be continued without any offence against nature even the omission of strict universal duty either natural decency or somewhat that bears proportion with it Jeanes Both Ames and my