Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Part 2 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
All the defences of the Ceremonies, used to justify them against the Scandall imputed to them, are confuted.
FRom that which hath been said, it followeth inevitably, Sect. I that since Scandall riseth out of the controverted Ceremonies and since they are not things necessary, they are to bee condemned and removed as most inconvenient. But that the inconveniency of them, in respect of the Scandall which they cause, may be particularly and plainely evinced, I come to discusse all the defences which our Opposites use against our Argument of Scandall. These Formalists who aknowledge the inconveniency of the Ceremonies in respect of Scandall, and yet conforme themselves to the same, are brought in by gEccl. Pol. pag. 246.Hooker making their Apology on this wise. Touching the offence of the weake, we must adventure it, if they perish, they perish &c. our Pastorall charge is Gods absolute commandement, rather then that shall be taken from us, &c. The opinion of such, beside that it will be hatefull and accursed to every one who considereth it, I have hsupra cap. 1.said enough against it heretofore.
Wherefore I will here medle onelyonly with such, as goe about to Sect. II purge the Ceremonies from the inconveniency of Scandall. And first, they commonly answer us, that the Scandall which followeth upon the Ceremonies, is passive and taken onelyonly, not active and given: which answer I find both impertinent and false. It is impertinent, because put the case the Scandall were onelyonly 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 8. 11. and 12 Propositions; and if any of our Opposites will denie this, let them blush for shame. iMal… nat. com. in illum locum.A Iesuite shall correct them, and teach them from Math. 17. 27. That Christ shunned a Scandall, which would have been merely passive, and therefore that this is not to be taken for a sure and perpetuall rule, Scandalum datum, non acceptum esse vitandum. kPareu… com. ibid.One of our owne Writers upon this same place noteth, that this Scandall which Christ eshewed, had been a Scandall taken onelyonly, because the exactors of the tribute money, ought not to have been ignorant of Christ his immunity and dignity, yet because they were ignorant of the same, lest he should seeme to give a Scandall; cedere potius sua libertate voluit. Ideo non tantum dicit: ne scandalizentur: sed ne scandalizemus cos, hoc est, ne scandali materiam eis demus.
Their answeare is also false; 1. There is no scandall taken, but (if Sect. III it be knowen to be taken, and the thing at which it is taken be not necessary,) it is also given. The Scandall of the weake in the Apostles times, who were offended with the liberty of eating all sorts of meats, was passive and taken, as lcom. in Eph. 4. 13.Zanchius observeth, yet was that Scandall given and peccant, upon their part who used their liberty of eating all sorts of meats, & so cared not for the offence of the weake. 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 a knowledge; and that they are not necessary in respect of the Churches determination, I have proven in the first part of my Dispute. Wherefore having no necessity in them, they ought to be abolished, when scandall is knowen to arise out of them.
2. Giving and not graunting, that the Scandall of them who were first offended at the Ceremonies, was only passive, yet the using of them after Scandall is knowen to rise out of them, must be an active Scandall, because the keeping of a thing which is not necessary, after scandall riseth out of it, is an active Scandall, though the Scandall which at first rose out of it, had beene only passive, as I shew in my seventh Proposition.
3. The trueth is, that both first and last, the Scandall of the Ceremonies is active and given; for an active Scandall is dictum vel factum vere malum, aut mali speciem habens, quo auctor aliis peccandi occasionem praebet, say mPolan. Synt. theol. lib. 6. c. 3. col. 19.our Divines. An active Scandall is ever a sinne in him who offendeth, quia vel ipsum opus quod facit est peccatum, vel etiam si habeat speciem peccati, &c. Say the nAquin. 2. 2…. q. 43. art. 2.Schoolmen. A scandall given and faulty, id opus aut ex se malum, aut apparenter, say oMarc. Ant de dom. de rep. eccl. lib. 1. c. 11. n. 18.Formalists themselves.
Now to say the least that can be said, the Ceremonies have a very Sect. IV great appearance of evill, and so the Scandall which followeth them shall be proven to be active. pCent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 450.The Divines of Magdeburge inferre from 1. Thess. 5. 22. speciem mali etiam scandala conficere. qcom. in Daniel. 1. 8.Iunius teacheth that Scandall is given sive exemplo malo, sive speciem habente mali. rde rep. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 10. n. 44.M. Ant. de dominis maketh the scandall sinne, 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 evill which is in the Ceremonies, let us consider with scomm. in 1 Thess. 5. 22.Zanchius, that the appearance of evill, from which the Apostle exhorteth to abstaine, may be expounded two wayes. First, it may be referred to the preceeding words, and so meant of Prophecie and trying the Doctrine of Prophets or Preachers, for we should be ware in this matter, of all which hath any appearance of evill, 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 Sonne of God, but of the sonne of man. Now if any suppressing that negative, should say, we are saved by the blood of the sonne of man, though this might receave a right explication, yet it hath an appearance of evill, because from it Nestorius might confirme his heresie. Appearance of evill thus expounded, will be found in the Ceremonies in question. If a Phrase or forme of speaking, from which Heretikes may draw bad consequences, & confirme their errors, though not truly, yet in shew, be an appearance of evill; then much more are visible Ceremonies and receaved Customes, from which Heretikes get occasion to confirme their hereticall errors and damnable superstitions, very plaine and undeniable appearances of much evill.
Now Papists confirme many of their superstitions by the English Ceremonies. tof the crosse cap. 3. sect. 6.Parker giveth too many cleare instances, namely, that by the English Crosse, Martiall justifyeth the Popish Crosse; And Saunders, the Popish Images; That the English Service booke, is drawen by Parsons and Bristowe, to a countenancing of their Massebooke: That Rainold draweth privat Baptisme, to a proofe of the necessity which they put in that Sacrament: That the Rhemists drawe the Absolution of the sicke, prescribed in the Communion-booke, to an approbation of their Absolution, Auricular Confession, and Sacrament of Pennance. To these Instances I adde, that uannot. on Gal. 4. 10.the Rhemists confirme their Feast of the assumption of Mary, from the other Feasts which the Church of England observeth. And so doth, xconfer. with Rain. c. 8. div. 2. pag. 408. 410.I. Hart.
It will be said, that Papists have no ground nor reason to confirme Sect. V any of their superstitions by the English Ceremonies. But I answere: 1. If it were so, yet for asmuch, as Papists draw them to a confirmation of their superstitions, we should abstaine from them as appearances of evill. Eating (at a privat banquet) of that which was sacrificed to Idols, did confirme ane Idolater and Infidell in his religion, as ycom. in 1. Cor. 10. 28.Pareus noteth: yet from this, the Idolater had no reason to confirme himselfe in his Idolatry; but because the Idolater seeing it, might draw it to a confirmation; the Apostle will have it for that respect foreborne. When the Arrians abused Trin immersion in Baptisme, to signify three natures of the three persons, zlib. 1. epist. 41.Pope Gregory and aCan. 5.the fourth Councell of Toledo ordained, that in Spaine, thrise washing should no longer be used in Baptisme, but once only. The Arrians had no just reason to draw such a signification from the Ceremony of Trin-immersion: yet was it abolished when those Heretikes did so abuse it. If any say, that we are saved by the blood of the sonne of man, the phrase is orthodoxe, because of the communication or rather communion of properties, and the Nestorians can not with good reason by it confirme their Heresie, yet are we to abstaine from this forme of speach, in Zanchius his judgment, when it is drawen to the confirmation of that error.
I conclude with that which bubi supra.Parker alledgeth out of the Harmony of Confessions. Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt. Marke rapiuntur. 2. The Ceremonies doe indeed greatly countenance those superstitions of Papists: because cBald. de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 14. cas. 7.Communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in Religione: 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, & making both their opinions and their practises to be better, then we reckon them to be.
dN fratri & amico art. 13.Saravia perceaving how much the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation, is countenanced & confirmed by our Bishoping, thinkes 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 doe not extoll the dignity of the Sacrament of Confirmation above Baptisme. But he should have considered that which eAnnot. on Act. 8. sect. 5.Cartwright marketh out of the first Tome of the Councells, that in the Epistle which is ascribed to Eusebius & Melciades Bishops of Rome, it is plainly affirmed, that the Sacrament of Confirmation is more to be reverenced then the Sacrament of Baptisme.
Zanchius hath another exposition of the appearance of evill, which doth also agree to the Ceremonies. The appearance of evill which Sect. VI maketh Scandall, and from which the Apostle would have us to abstaine, may be taken generally of all sorts of sinne, & all evill things whatsoever: for so we should abstaine from all that which hath any appearance of evill; nullam praebentes occasionem proximo nostro aliquid mali de nobis suspicandi. He instanceth for example, the ea…ing of Idolothytes in Pauls time, 1. Cor. 10. now if the eating of Idolothyte Meats, was an appearance of evill, and so scandalous, because it gave the weake occasion to suspect some evill of such as did eat them; much more Idolothyte Rites which have not only beene dedicated and consecrated to the honour of Idolls, but also publikely and commonly used and imployed in Idolatrous …ship; surely whosoever useth such Idolothytes, gives great occ…on to his brother to suspect some evill of him, because of such evill favoured appearances. And thus we see, how great appearance of evill, is more then manifest in the Ceremonies, which maketh the Scandall active, if there were no more. But afterwards we shall see the Ceremonies to be evill and unlawfull in themselves, and so to be in the worst kinde of active Scandall.
Two things are objected here by our Adversaries, to make it appeare Sect. VII that the Scandall of Conformity, is not active nor fautly upon their part. 1. They say, they are blamelesse, because they render a reason of that which they doe, so that we may know the lawfullnesse of it. To this, sufficient answere hath beene made allready, by one whose answeres I may well produce to provoke Conformists therewith, because no reply hath ever beene made to them. This saith fPark. of the crosse part. 2. pag. 57. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Rom. 14. 16. 1. Cor. 9. 12. 1. Thess. 2. 7. Act. 20. 34. Math. 18. 6.he, if it be true, then see we an end of all the duty of bearing with the weake: of forbearing our owne liberty, power, and auctority in things indifferent, for their supportance: yea an end of all the care to prevent their offence, by giving them occasion gCornel. Iansen. conc. Evang. c. 71.aut condemnandi factum nostrum, aut illud imitandi contra conscientiam, which we have hAug. de mor. b Manich l. 2. cap. 14. Rom. 14. 20.so often, so seriously, with so many reasons, obtestations, yea woes and threatnings commanded to us throughout the Word What needed Paul to write so much against the scandall of meates, and against the scandall of Idolothious meats? This one precept might have sufficed, let the strong give a reason for his eating, &c. Though be hath given many reasons to them of Corinth for the lawfullnesse of taking wages: though he hath given divers reasons for the lawfullnesse of all sorts of meats to them of Rome; yet neither will he take wages himselfe, nor suffer others to eat all sorts of meats, when others are offended. And what is that which he writeth Rom. 14 Take and receave the weak for their supportance, and not for contraversy and disputation? &c.
It will be said, that they are to be thought obstinate, who after a reason given, are still scandalized. But the answere is in readinesse, iAmes. lib. 5. de consc. c. 11. q. 6.Fieri potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditae, qui idcirco quamvis ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc pro pusillis. They are rather to be thought obstinate in scandalizing, who perceiving the scandall to remaine notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that, take not away the occasion of the scandall. But say kDr Forbesse Iren. lib. 2. c 20. num. 27.some, whoever ought to be esteemed weake, or not capable of reason, Ministers must not be so thought of. Whereunto I answere with Didoclavius; Infirmitatem in doctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, & superiorum temporum historia de dimicatione inter doctores Ecclesiae, ob Ceremonias, (l) Alt. damasc cap. 9. pag. 556.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 Auctority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such a one as can not cleare nor resolve our consciences. But let their reasons be so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being offended not with standing of their reason? Dare they say that those who contended so much of old about the Celebration of Easter, and about the Fast of the Sabbath, were not weake, but obstinate & malicious, after a reason was given? Why consider they not, mPark. of the crosse part. 2. pag. 75.that men may for their science be profitable ministers, and yet faile of that measure of prudency whereby to judge of a particular use of indifferent things.
2. They say, they give no Scandall by the Ceremonies, because Sect. VIII they have no such intent as to drawe any into sinne by them. Ans. A scandalous and inordinat quality, or condition of an action any way inductive to sinne, maketh an active Scandall, though the doer have no intention to draw into sinne. This I made good in my 4. Proposition; and it is further confirmed by that great Scandall whereby Peter compelled the Gentiles to judaize Gal. 2. 14. He constrained them saith ncom. upon this place.Perkins, by the auctority of his example, whereby he caused them to thinke that the observation of the Ceremoniall Law was necessary. It was then the quality of his action which made the Scandall active, because that which he did was inductive to sinne, but we are not to think that Peter had an intention to drawe the Gentiles to sinne. oTom. 1. an. 55. n. 39.Cardinall Baronius laboureth to make Peter blamelesse, & his fact free of all fault; quia praeter ipsius spem id acciderat, and it fell forth only ex accidenti & inopinato, ac praeter intentionem ipsius. pde rep. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 11. n. 18.M. Ant. de dominis consuteth him well: Est scandalum & cum peccato, quando quis licet non intendat peccatum alterius, facit tamen opus aut ex se malum aut apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet, consequuturum alterius peccatum, aut quodcunque malum: nam etiam dicitur illud volentarium interpretative.
I will yet descend more particularly to confute our Opposites their severall answeares and defences, which they have used against Sect. IX our Argument of Scandall. And I beginne with our Lord Chancellour; As for the Godly amongst us qSerm. at Perth. assemb.saith he, we are sorry they should be grieved, but it is their owne fault: for if the things be in themselves lawfull, what is it that should offend them?
Ans. 1. He does not well expresse Scandall (whereof he is there speaking) by griefe, for I may be grieved, yet not scandalized, and scandalized, yet not grieved, according to my first proposition touching Scandall.
2. To what purpose tells he, it is their owne fault? Thinkes he that there are any offended without their owne fault? *Non enim solum scandalizare, sed etiam scandalizari peccatum, est, quia infirmitatis est saith Maldonat. upon Math. 18. 7.To be offended is ever a fault, as I shew in my 3. and 6. Propositions; so that if a Scandall be not removed, where it is mens owne fault that they are offended, then no Scandall shall ever be removed; because all who are scandalized, commit a fault in being Scandalized. Nihil potest esse hominicausa sufficiens peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas, & ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam, saith r2. 2a. q. 43 art. 1.Aquinas; giving a reason why in the definition of Scandall, he saith not, that it giveth cause, but that it giveth occasion of ruine.
3. Why thinkes he, that if the things be in themselves lawfull, they are purged of Scandall? s1. Cor. 10. 23.what if they edify not? what if hey be not expedient? are they not therefore scandalous, because in themselves lawfull? this shift is destroyed by my 9. Proposition. And I pray, were not all meats lawfull for the Gentiles in the Apostles times? yet this could not excuse their eating all sorts of meats, when the Iewes were thereby offended.
4. Whereas he demandeth, if the thinges be in themselves lawfull; what is it that should offend them? I demand againe; though adultery, murder &c. be in themselves unlawfull, what is it that should offend us? should we offend or be scandalized for any thing? hay, then we should sinne, for to be offended is a sinne.
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 answere, that there is a twofold Scandall which may be and hath beene given by thinges lawfull in themselves, (as I touched in my. 5. Proposition) Viz. the giving of occasion to the weake to condemne our lawful deeds, & the animating of them to followe our example against their owne consciences: both wayes we make them to sinne. The Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 29. where he is speaking of a certaine kind of Idolothyts which are in themselves lawfull, and only evill in the case of Scandall, sheweth, that if the weake in a privat banquet, see the stronge eating such meates as have beene offered to Idolls, notwith standing of warning given, then is the weake one scandalized; because would the Apole say, tPare us com in illumlocum.velipse etiam edet tuo exemplo, vacillante conscientia, vel tacite factum tuum damnabit. Behold what Scandall may arise, even out of thinges which are in themselves lawfull, which also ariseth out of the Ceremonies, (let them be as lawfull as can be.) 1. We are provoked to dissallow of lawfull thinges, and to condemne the doers, as superstitious and popishly affected. 2. We are animated by the example of Formalists to practise Conformity, which in our consciences we condemne, and by consequence doe sinne, because he that doubteth is damned, and whatsoever is not of faith, is sinne.
Let us see next how the Bishop of Edinburgh can helpe the cause. Sect. X He will have us not to respect Scandall, because it is removed by the Law. For uEpist. to the past. of the Church of Scotlandsaith he, by obedience to a lawfull ordinance, no man gives Scandall. And if any take offence, both the cause and occasion thereof is the perversnesse only of the person offended. Tertullian saith well, res bona neminem offendit nisi malam mentem.
Ans. 1. I shew in my 9. Proposition, that the ordinance of Superiours can not make that to be no scandall which otherwise should be Scandall. If this be not taken well from us, let xDr. Forbesse Iren. lib. 2. cap. 20. num. 19.one of our Opposites speake for us; who aknowledgeth, that human power can not make us doe that which we can not doe without giving of Scandall, and that in this case, the pretext of obedience to Superiours shall not excuse us at the hands of the Supreme judge.
2. I would learne of him what makes a lawfull ordinance about matters of fact or thinges to be done? Not the will of Superiours; else there shall be no unlawfull ordinances; (for every ordinance hath the will of the ordainer:) Not the lawfullnesse of the thing in it selfe which is ordained neither; for then every ordinance, which prescribeth a thing lawfull in it selfe, were it never so inexpedient in respect of supervenient circum stances, should be lawfull. To a lawfull ordinance then required, not only that the thing ordained be lawfull in it selfe, is also that it be not inexpedient. So that a thing may be lawfull in itselfe, yet not lawfully ordained, because the ordinance commandeth the doing of it, whereas there are many thinges lawfull which ought not to be done, because they are not expedient, 1. Cor. 6. 12.
3. Since it can not be a lawfull ordinance which ordaineth a thing inexpedient, it can not be a lawfull obedience which is yeelded to such an ordinance.
4. If by a lawfull ordinance he meane (as it seems he doth) an ordinance prescribing, that which is lawfull in it selfe, then his answere is false. What if an ordinance of Superiours, had ordained the Corinthians to eate freely of all meates which were in themselves cleane? Durst the Bishop say, that this ordinance of Superiours had beene of greater waight and superiour reason, then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law? Had no man given scandall 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 lawfull prescribed by an ordinance, the cause thereof is indeed in himselfe (yet it is not alwayes his perversnesse, but oftimes weaknesse:) 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 shew already.
6. As for that sentence of Tertullian, it must admit the exception of a reverend Divine. He signifieth (saith ycomm. in. 1 Cor. 8. 9.Paraeus) scandall not to be properly committed, save in thinges evill in themselves, or else indifferent: quanquam interdum circa bonas intempestive factas etiam committi possit.
In the third place we will looke what weapons of warre Dr. zlib 2. c. 20. num. 5. & 6.Forbesse Sect. XI produceth in his Irenicum, falsly so called. And first, he will not heare us touching Scandall, except we first a knowledge the Ceremonies not to be evill in themselves: otherwise he thinks we debate in vaine about Scandall, since we have a more convenient way to exterminat the Ceremonies by proving them to be evill in themselves, and also because when we are pressed with the weight of Arguments, we will still runne back to this point, that nothing which in it selfe is unlawfull, can be done without Scandall.
Ans. 1. The Argument of Scandall is not vainly or idly debated, for though we prove the Ceremonies to be evill in themselves, yet fitly we argument also from the Scandall of them, because this maketh yet more. 1. ad rem; For the Scandall of a thing is more then the unlawfullnesse of it: every unlawfull 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 yeeld the Ceremonies to be in themselves indifferent, therefore they must a knowledge that they are to be foreborne, because scandall followeth upon them, & they should abstaine from thinges indifferent, in the case of scandall.
2. Whereas he thinkes we will still turne back to the unlawfullnesse of the Ceremonies in themselves, albeit we may justly make use of this answear, when they goe about to purge the Ceremonies from Scandall by the lawfullnesse of them in themselves, (because the Argument of Scandall doeth not presuppose our concession of the lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, but theirs;) yet he deceives himselfe in thinking that we can not handle this Argument without it, for were they never so lawfull in themselves, we asupra sect. 4. 5. 6.evince the Scandall of them from the appearance of evill which is in them, so that without respecting the unlawfullnesse of the Ceremonies in themselves, we can and doe make good our Argument of Scandall, so farre as concerneth the Ceremonies considered by themselves.
But when our Opposites object, that many are scandalized by us who refuse the Ceremonies, we here compare the Scandall of Non-conformity, if there be any such (for though some be displeased at it, I see not how they are scandalized by it,) with the Scandall of Conformity, and shew them that the Scandall of Non-conformity is not to be cared for, because it is necessary, and that by reason of the unlawfullnesse of the Ceremonies. I will make all this plaine by a simile.
A Pastor dealing with a Fornicator, layeth before him both his sinne and the Scandall of it too. Now as touching the Scandall, 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 Scandall riseth out of it, you should abstaine. And so amongst many Arguments against Fornication, the Pastor useth this Argument taken from the Scandall of it, both for aggravating the sinne in it selfe, and for convincing the sinner, and this Argument of Scandall, the Pastor can make good against the Fornicator, out of his owne ultroneous and unrequired concession of the indifferency of Fornication (because things indifferent and in the case of Scandall, and when they are done with the appearance of evill, should be forborne) without ever mentioning the unlawfulnesse of it. But if in an froward tergiversation, the Fornicator beginne to reply, that he also is scandalized and provoked to goe on in his Fornication obstinately, by the Pastors rebuking him for so light a matter, and that the Pastors reproofe to him hath appearance of evill, as much as his Fornication hath to the Pastor: Albeit here it may be answered, that the Pastors reproofe is not done inordinatè, neither hath any appearance of evill, except in the Fornicators perverse interpretation, yet for stopping the Fornicators mouth as well more forcibly as more quickly, the Pastor rejoyndeth, that if any scandall followe upon his reproofe, it is not to be regarded, because the thing is necessary and that because Fornication beeing a great sinne, he may not but reprove it.
So, albeit our Argument of Scandall holdeth out against the Ceremonies considered by themselves, without making mention of the unlawfulnesse of them in themselves: albeit also when the Scandall of Non-conformity (if there bee any such) is compared with the Scandall of Conformity, we say truly, that this hath appearance of evill 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, & darting through their most subtile subterfuges, with a mortall stroke, we send them away with this finall answer; you should abstaine from the Ceremonies when Scandall riseth out of them, because you confesse them to be in themselves indifferent. But we doe avouch and prove them to be unlawfull, wherefore it is necessary for us to abstaine, though all the world should be offended.
The bibid. num. 7.Dr. proceedeth to throw backe the Argument of Scandall upon our own heads, and to charge us with scandalizing both the Sect. XII Church and common wealth, by our refusing the Ceremonies. But what? should a Doctor be a Dictator? or a Proctor, a Prater? why then doeth he ventilate words for reason? That some are displeased at our Non-conformity, we understand to our great griefe: but that thereby any are scandalized, we understand not, and if we did, yet that which is necessary, such as Non-conformity is, can be taken away by no Scandall.
But cNum. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.the Dr. goeth forward, denying that there is in the Ceremonies so much as any appearance of evill, to make them Scandalous. Where I observe, that he dare not adventure to describe how a thing is said to have appearance of evill, and consequently a scandalous condition. The man is cautelous, and perceiveth peradventure, that the appearance of evill can be made to appeare no other thing, then that which doeth more then appeare in the Ceremonies. And this I have heretofore evinced out of Zanchius.
The dNum. 15, 16.Dr. holdeth him upon kneeling in receiving the Sacramentall Elements, and denieth that it is scandalous, or any way inductive to spirituall ruine. But (if he will) he may consider, that the ruder sort who can not distinguish betwixt worshipping the Bread, and worshipping before the Bread, nor discerne 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 downe before the consecrated Bread, in the very same forme and fashion, wherein Papists are seen to worship it, but can not 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 ruine, being animated by his example to doe that which their consciences doe condemne.
There occurreth next an objection taken from Paul his not taking wages at Corinth, (though he might lawfully) for shunning the offence both of the malitious and the weake: In the solution whereof fNum. 17.the Dr. spendeth some words. The substance of his answer is this: that Paul taught it was lawfull to take wages, and that they should not be offended at it, and if we doe as he did, we must teach that the Ceremonies are lawfull in themselves, yet not using our power for the time, lest the weake be offended, or lest the malitious 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 Ecclesiasticall Auctority, abstaine from taking of wages, but we can not without contempt of the Church, reject the Articles.
Ans. 1. This importeth, that if the question were not de jure, and if we misliked the Ceremonies, and were offended at them, for some other reason then their unlawfulnesse, for this offence they would abstaine. It may be his reverend Fathers returne him small thankes for this device. For let some men be brought forth, acknowledging the Ceremonies to bee in themselves indifferent, yet offended at them for their inexpediency, whether they be weake or malitious, the Dr. thinkes he should abstaine for their cause.
2. How knowes he, that they who were offended at Paul his taking of wages at Corinth, thought not his taking of wages there unlawfull, even as we thinke the Ceremonies unlawfull?
3. Why judgeth he that we are not scandalized through weaknesse, but through malice and contumacy? So he giveth it forth both in this place, and gIren. lib. 1. cap. 10. §. 2.else where. Who art thou that judgeth another mans servant?
But 4. If we were malitious in offending at the Ceremonies as things unlawfull, and in urging of Non-conformity as necessary, should they therefore contemne our beeing scandalized? Those that would have Titus circumcised, were they not malitious? Did they not urge Circumcision as necessary? Held they it not unlawfull, not to circumcise Titus? yet did the Apostle abstaine, because they were to be scandalized, that is, made worse and more wicked calumniators, by the circumcising of Titus, as hsupra cap. 8. sect. 6.I have shewed; so that albeit wee are not to care for the displeasing of men, that malitiously and contumaciously, urge (as necessary) abstaining from that which is lawfull to be done; yet must we care for scandalizing them and making them worse: rather ere that be, we ought to abstaine from the use of our liberty.
5. If an Ecclesiasticall decree had commanded Paul at that time to take wages at Corinth, the Dr. thinkes hee had contemned Ecclesiasticall Auctority in not taking wages, though some should be offended at his taking wages. What? could an Ecclesiasticall decree command Paul to take wages in the case of Scandall? or could hee have obeyed such a decree in the case of Scandall? We have seen before, that no humane Auctority, can make that no Scandall, which otherwise were Scandall: so that Paul had not contemned Ecclesiasticall Auctority, by not obeying their command, in this case of Scandall which had followed by his obeying: for he had not been bound to obey, nay hee had been bound not to obey in such a case, yea further, albeit Scandall 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, then he had done by living unmarried, if the Church had commanded him to marry. The bare Auctority of the Church could neither restraine his liberty nor ours in things in different, when there is no more to binde but the Auctority of an ordinance.
6. Why holds he us contemners of the Church, for not receiving the five Articles of Perth? we can not be called contemners for not obeying, but for not subjecting our selves, wherewith we can not be charged. Could he not distinguish betwixt subjection and obedience? Art thou a Doctor in Israell, and knowest not these things? Nay, art thou a Conformist, and knowest not what thy iField of the Church lib. 4. cap. 34. & Bils. apud Parker of the Crosse part. 2. pag. 33.fellow Conformists doe hold?
One point more resteth, at which kibid. l. 2. cap. 20. num. 14.the Dr. holdeth him in this Argument, namely, that for the offence of the weake, necessary Sect. XIII things are not to be omitted, such as is obedience to Superiours, but their mindes are to be better informed.
Ans. 1. Obedience to Superiours can not purge that from Scandall which otherwise were Scandall, as lsupra cap. 8. sect. 5. & cap. 9. sect, 10.we have seen before.
2. That information and giving of a reason, can not excuse the doing of that out of which Scandall riseth, mibid. sect. 7.we have also proven already.
3. That the Ordinance of Superiours can not make the Ceremonies necessary, I have proven in the first part of this Dispute. This nMorney mister. of iniq. in the conclus.is given for one of the chiefe markes of the man of sinne, That which is indifferent, he by his lawes and prohibitions maketh to be sinne, and shall they who professe to take part with Christ against Antichrist, doe no lesse then this? It will be replyed, that the Ceremonies are not thought necessary in themselves, nor Non-conformity, unlawfull in it selfe, but onelyonly in respect of the Churches ordinance. Iust so oAquin. 3. q. 66. art. 8. Rh…m. annot. on Math. 16. sect. 5. Bell. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 18. & de sacrif. miss… lib. 6. c. 13.the Papists professe, that the omission of their Rites and observances, is not a sinne in it selfe, but onelyonly in respect of contemning the Churches Customes and Commandements. How comes it then, that they are not ashamed to pretend such a necessity for the stumbling blockes of those offending Ceremonies among us, as Papists pretend for the like among them?
But the English Formalists have here somewhat to say, which we will heare. pEccl. Pol. lib. 4. 11. 12.Mr. Hooker tell us, that Ceremonies are scandalous Sect. XIV either in their very nature, or else through the agreement of men to rise them unto evill; and that Ceremonies of this kind, are either devised at first unto evill, 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 owne nature; nor because they were devised unto evill; nor yet because they of the Church of England abuse them unto evill.
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 trophees of Antichrist, and the reliques of Romes whoorish bravery: they must be graunted, at least for this respect, to be more then manifest appearances of evill, and so scandalous.
But 2. It is falle which he saith, for kneeling in receiving the Communion, is in its owne nature evill and Idolatrous, because religious Adoration, before a mere creature, which purposly wee set before us in the act of adoring, to have state in the worship, especially if it be an actuall Image in that act representing Christ to us, (such as the Bread in the act of receiving,) draweth us within the compasse of coadoration or relative worship, as shall be copiously proven afterwards.
Other of the Ceremonies that are not evill in their owne nature, yet were devised to evill, for example, the Surplice. The qcap. 1. sect. 3.replier to Dr. Mourtons Particular defence, observeth, that this superstition about apparell in Divine worship, beganne first among the Frensh Bishops, unto whom Caelestinus writeth thus. Discernendi, &c. We are to be distinguished from the common people and others, by Doctrine, not by Garment, by Conversation, not by Habite, by the Purity of minde, not by Attire: for if wee study to innovation, we tread underfoot the order which hath been delivered unto us by our Fathers, to make place to idle superstitions; wherefore we ought not leade the mindes of the Faithfull into such things: for they are rather to be instructed then played withall: neither are we to blinde and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their mindes. In which words Caelestinus reprehends this apparell, as a novelty which …nded to superstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faithfull.
Lastly, whereas he saith, the Ceremonies are not abused by them in England I instance the contrary in Holy-dayes. rexpos. of the creed art. of Christs birth.Perkins saith, that the Feast of Christs Nativity, so cōmonly called, is not spent in praising the name of God, but in riffling, dycing, carding, masking, mumming, and in all licentious liberty, for the most part, as though it were some Heathen Feast of Ceres or Bacchu…. And scom. on Gal. 4. 10.elsewhere he complaineth of the great abuse of Holy-dayes among them.
As touching the rule which is alledged against the Ceremonies out of Pauls Doctrine, namely, that in those things from which Sect. XV we may lawfully abstaine, we should frame the usage of our liberty with regard to the weaknesse of our bretheren. Hooker answeareth to it. 1. That the weake bretheren among them, were not as the Iewes, who were knowne to be generally weake, whereas saith he, the imbecillity of ours is not common to so many, but onelyonly here and there some such a one is found. 2. He tels us, that these scandalous meats, from which the Gentiles were exhorted to abstaine for feare of offending the Iewes, can not 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 himselfe did; but the Ceremonies are publike constitutions for ordering the Church, and wee are not to looke that the Church is to change her publike lawes and ordinances, made according to that which is judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole, although it chaunce 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 bee better instructed.
Ans. 1. This is bad divinity, that would make us not regard the scandalizing of a few particular men; Christs tMath. 18, 6.woe stricketh not onelyonly upon them who offend many, but even upon them who offend so much as one of his litls ones.
2. That which he saith of the few in England, and not many, who are scandalized by the Ceremonies, hath been answered by a uParker of the crosse cap. …. sect. 10.Countryman of his owne. 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 scandalized by the Ceremonies: some are ledde by them to drinke in superstition, and to fall into sundry grosse abuses in Religion; others are made to use them doubtingly and so dammably. And how many who refuse them, are animated to use them against their consciences, and so to bee damned? who is not made to stumble? and what way doe they not impede the Edification of the Church?
3. What if there had been a publike constitution, commanding the Gentiles to eat all meates freely, and that this had been judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole, even to signifie the liberty of the Church of the New Testament? should not the Gentiles notwithstanding of this constitution, have abstained because of the Scandall of the Iewes? How comes it then that that which the Apostle writeth against the Scandall of meates, & the reasons which he giveth, are found to hold ever good, whether there be a constitution or not?
4. As for his remedy against the Scandall of particular men, which is to instruct them better, it hath beene answeared xsect, 7.before.
Now if I reck on Paybody to be no body, perhaps some body will Sect. XVI: not take it well. I will therefore examine how he handleth this Argument. Four things are answered yApol. part. 3. cap. 5.by him to those places, Rom. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. Muth. 18. 6. which are alledged against the use of things indifferent, when wee can not use them without Scandall.
First, he saith, that all those Scriptures which are quotted as condemning the scandalizing of others in things indifferent, speake onelyonly of scandalizing them who are weake.
Ans. 1. be it so: thought he that they are all malitious, and none weake, who are offended by the Ceremonies? He himselfe describeth the weak whom we are forbidden to scandalize, to be such as are weake in knowledge and certainty of the truth. Now there are many who are in this respect weake, scandalized 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, & that stability which should accompany all their actions, in the particular usage of such things as they knowe certainely in their generall kinde to bee agreeable to trueth and righteousnesse. 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 scandalized according to my fifth Proposition. Si quis nostra culpa vel impingit, vel abducitur a recto curs…, vel tardatur, cum dicimur offendere saith zcom. in Mat. 18. 6.Calvine. Porro scandalum est dictum vel factum quo impeditur Evangelij cursus, cujus ampliationem & propagationem, totius vitae nostrae scopum esse oportet saith acom. 1 Cor. 8.Martyr.
2. It is a fault to give offence even to the strong, or else bMath. 16. 23.Peter was not to be blamed for giving offence to Christ. Yea it is a fault to offend the very malitious by-things that are not necessary, as I have proven in my 12 Proposition.
Secondly saith he, all those Scriptures condemne onelyonly the Scandall of the weake, which is made at that time, when we know they Sect. XVII will be scandalized.
Ans. 1. If he speake of certaine and infallible knowledge, none but God knoweth whether a man shall be scandalized or not, by that which we are to doe: He must meane therefore of such knowledge as we can have of the event of our actions: and so his answere bringeth great damnage to his owne cause. Formalists knowe, that their weake bretheren have been of a long time scandalized by the Ceremonies, and they heare them professing that they are yet scandalized, and how then can they but knowe that Scandall will still follow upon that which they doe?
2. Albeit they know not that their bretheren will be scandalized by the Ceremonies, yea albeit their bretheren should not be scandalized thereby, yet because the Ceremonies are appearances of evill; inductive to sinne; and occasions of ruine; Scandall is given by them, whether it be taken by their bretheren or not, according to my 4 and 5 Propositions.
Thirdly saith Paybody, all those Scriptures condemne onelyonly that Sect. XVIII offence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him who is at liberty and not bound: they speake not of using or refusing those things, as men are tied by the commandement of Auctority. Where he laboureth to prove, that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty then the pleasing of a private person in such a thing.
Ans. 1. I have proven heretofore, that the commandement of Auctority, can not make the use of a thing indifferent to bee no Scandall, which otherwise were Scandall.
2. I have also proven in the first part of this Dispute, that an Ecclesiasticall constitution can not bind us nor take away our liberty in the using or not using of a thing indifferent in it selfe, except some other reason bee shewed us then the bare Auctority of the Church. As touching the civill Magistrate, his place and power, to judge and determine in things pertaining to the worship of God, we shall see it afterwards, and so shall we knowe how farre his decisions and ordinances in this kinde of things, have force to binde us to obedience.
3. He should have proven, that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty then abstaining from that which scandalizeth many Christians: he should not have opposed pleasing and scandalizing (for perhaps a man is most scandalized when he is most pleased;) but edifying and scandalizing, according to my first Proposition. Now will any body, except Paybody, say, that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, out of which Scandall riseth, is a better duty then forbearing for the edification of many Christian soules, and for shunning to scandalize them. This wee must take to bee his meaning, or else he saith nothing to the purpose.
His fourth answere is, that all those Scriptures condemning scandall, Sect. XIX must needs especially condemne that which is greatest. Peter and his companions comming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandall; either of the Iewes by eating with the Gentiles, which was the lesse, or of the Gentiles in refuising their company, as if they had not beene bretheren, which was farre the greater: Now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for the avoiding the lesser scandall he & and his companions fell into the greater.
Ans. 1. He is greatly mistaken, whiles he thinkes that a man can be so straited betwixt two scandalls, that he can not choose but give the one of them; cAmes. lib. 5. de consc. c. 11.For Nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pio homini sive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare.
2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evills, must be understood of evills of punishment, not of evills of sinne, as I shew dsupr… cap. 1.before, so that he is in a foule error, whiles he would have us to choose the least of two scandalls.
3. As for the example which he alledgeth, he deceiveth himselfe to thinke that Peter had given scandall to the Iewes, by his eating with the Gentiles. Cum Gentibus cibum capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana, say ecent. 1. lib. 2. c. 10. col. 560.the Magdeburgians: but when certaine Iewes came from Iames he withdrew himselfe, fearing the Iewes, and so quod ante de libertate Christiana edificarat, rursus destruebat: By eating then with the Gentiles he gave no scandall, but by the contrary he did edify. And further I say, that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for shunning of two great scandalls; the one, of the Gentiles, by compelling them to judaize; the other, of the Iewes, by confirming them in judaisme, both vvhichwhich followed upon his withdrawvving from the Gentiles; so that by his eating vvith the Gentiles no scandall could be given, and if any had beene taken, it was not to be carred for. Wherefore there was but one scandall, which Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did give, & for which Paul reprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of themselves from the Gentiles, & keeping company only with the Iewes; whereby both the Iewes and the Gentiles were scandalized, because both were made to think, (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the observation of the Ceremoniall law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody, is the confounding of scandalizing and displeasing. Peter by eating with the Gentiles perhapes had displeased the Iewes, but he had thereby edifyed them though: The scandall which he gave them was by judaizing; Iudaizabat olim Petrus per dissimulationem saith fde auserib. pap… consider 12.Gerson: by this judaizing through such dissimulation and double dealing, as was his eating with the Gentiles first, & then withdrawing of himselfe, when certaine Iewes came; for keeping company with them only, he scandalized the Iewes and confirmed them in judaisme, as gcomm. in illum locum.Paraeus noteth. How then can it be said, that he had scandalized them by his eating with the Gentiles: for here upon it should followe that there was a necessity of doing evill laid upon Peter, so that he behooved to offend the Iewes, 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 plaine, that if he scandalized the Iewes by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I have shewed, then had he not scandalized them, but edifyed them by his eating with the Gentiles.
4. I perceive he would say, that the scandall of Non-conformity is a greater scandall, then the scandall of Conformity; and so he would make us gaine litle by our Argument of scandall. hubi supra. p. 441.He is bold to object, where one is offended with our practise of kneeling, twentie; I may say ten thousand are offended with your refusall. O Adventurous Arithmetique! O huge Hyperbole! O desultorious Declamation! O roving Rethorike! O prodigall Paradoxe!
Yet I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are displeased by our refusall, who can shew us, that any are thereby scandalized, that is, made worse, and induced to ruine? This man is bold to say well to it; but we have solidly proven, that scandall riseth out of kneeling, and the rest of the Ceremonies, let it be measured to us, with the same measure wherewith we mette.
2. Put the case that ten thousand were scandalized by our refusall, will it thereupon follow, that our refusall is a greater scandall then their practising? Nay then, let it be said that the Crosse of Christ is a greater scandall, then a privat mans Fornication, because both i1. Cor. 1. 23.Iewes and Greeks were offended at that, whereas perhaps a small Congregation only is offended at this.
3. Our refusall is necessary, because of the unlawfulnesse of the Ceremonies which we refuise, so that we may not receive them, but must refuse them, notwithstanding of any scandall which can follow upon our refusall. If he had ought to say against this answere, why is he silent? he might have found it at home. Our forbearance of Conformity saith kof the Crosse part. 2. pag. 79.Parker, is a necessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandall in us.
4. Our Opposites should doe well to assoyle our Argument of scandall, before they propound another Argument against us, for …o long as they make it not evident, that the scandall of the Ceremonies, which we object, is no active or faulty scandall; as long they can not object the scandall of Non-conformity to us; because if the scandall (which is to be avoided) be in their practising of the Ceremonies, it can not 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 scandalized, the Bishop of Winchester teacheth as well as wee. Many times lSerm. on 10. 16. 7.saith he, 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 doe they meane, vvho say they are scandalized, or made vvorse by our Non-conformity? for neither doe we make them condemne our lavvfull deed as unlavvfull, nor yet doe vve animate them by our example to doe that vvhichwhich in their consciences they judge unlavvfull. They themselves aknovvledge, that sitting is as lavvfull as kneeling; that the not observing of the fyve Holy-dayes is as lavvfull, as the observing of them; that the not Bishoping of children is as lavvfull as the Bishopping of them. Doe they not aknovvledge the indifferency of the thinges themselves? Doe 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 Bishopping of Children, and the ministration of the Sacraments in private places? As for our selves, we make our meaning plaine, when we object the scandall 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 dregges of Popish superstition & formality, from which they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the Ceremonies, with a doubting and dissalowing conscience, and to say with Naaman, in this the Lord be mercifull unto us, if we… erre: with my owne eares have I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the Ceremonies, for that they can not see the lawfullnesse of them, yet are animated by the example of practising Conformists, to doe these things which in their consciences they condemne as unalwfull (which were to sinne damnably:) and if they doe them not, then is there no small doubting and disquietnesse, trouble and trepidation, harboured in their consciences. And thus one way or other, some weakening or deterioration commeth to us by the means of the Ceremonies. And if any of our Opposites date thinke, that none of us can be so weake as to stumble or take any harme in this kinde, because of the Ceremonies; we take God himselfe to witnesse who shall make manifest the counsells of the heart, that wee speake the trueth, and lie not.
Finally, let that be considered, which Divines mParau… comm. in Rom. 15. 1. Serm. on. I…. 16. 7.observe to be the perpetuall condition of the Church; namely, that as in any other family, there are found some great, some small, some strong, some weake, some wholesome, some sickely; 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 indued with moe gifts of God, and some with fewer.