Five Cases of Conscience, Case 4 – Case 5
The CASE of SCANDAL.
1. IN judging of Cases of Scandal, we are not so much to look at the event what that is, or may be; as at the cause whence it cometh; for sometimes there is given just cause of Scandal, and yet no Scandal followeth, because it is not taken: sometimes Scandal is taken, and yet no just cause given; and sometimes there is both cause of Scandal given, and Scandal thereat taken: but no man is concerned in any Scandal, that happeneth to another, by occasion of any thing done by him; neither is chargeable with it, farther then he is guilty of having given it: If then we give Scandal to others, and they take it not, we are to bear a share in the blame as well as they, and that a deeper share too, (Vae homini, Wo to the Man by whom the Offence cometh, Matth. VIII. 7.) but if they take Offence, when we give none, it is a thing we cannot help, therefore the whole blame must lie upon them; wherefore if at any time any doubt shall arise in the Case of Scandal, how far forth the danger thereof may or may not oblige us to the doing or not doing any thing proposed, the Resolution will come on much the easier; if we shall but rightly understand, What it is to give Scandal, or how many wayes a Man may become guilty of Scandalizing another by his example. The wayes (as I conceive) are but these four.
2. The first is when a Man doth something before another Man, which is in it self evill, unlawfull, and sinfull; in which Case neither the intention of him that doth it, nor the event, as to him that seeth it done, is of any consideration; for it mattereth not whether the doer had an intention to draw the other into sin thereby or not: neither doth it matter, whether the other were thereby induced to commit sin or not: the matter or substance of the action being evill and done before others, is sufficient to render the doer guilty of having given Scandal, though he had neither any intention himself so to do; nor were any other person actually Scandalized thereby; because whatsoever is in it self, and in its own nature evill, is also of it self and in its own nature Scandalous, and of evill example. Thus did Hophni and Phineas the Sons of Eli, give Scandal by their wretched prophaness and greediness about the Sacrifices of the Lord, and their vile and shameless abusing the Women, 1 Sam. II. 17, 22. And so did David also give great Scandal in the matter of Uriah, 2 Sam. xii. 14. Here the Rule is, Do nothing that is evill, for fear of giving Scandal.
3. The second way is, when a Man doth something before another, with a direct intention and formal purpose of drawing him thereby to commit sin; in which Case, neither the matter of the action, nor the event is of any consideration; for it maketh no difference (as to the sin of giving Scandal) whether any Man be effectually enticed thereby to commit sin, or not; neither doth it make any difference, whether the thing done were in it self unlawful or not, so as it had but an appearance of evill; and from thence an aptitude to draw another to do that (by imitation) which should be really and intrinsecally evill, the wicked intention alone (whatsoever the effect should be, or means soever should be used to promote it) sufficeth to induce the guilt of giving Scandal upon the doer: This was Ieroboam's sin, in setting up the Calves with a formal purpose and intention thereby (for his own secular and ambitious ends) to corrupt the purity of Religion, and to draw the people to an Idolatrous worship, for which cause he is so often stigmatized with it; as with a note of Infamy, to stick by him whilest the world lasteth, being scarce ever mentioned but with this addition, Ierohoam the son of Nebat that made Israel to sin. Here the Rule is, Do nothing (good or evil) with an intention to give Scandal.
4. The third way is, when a Man doth something before another, which in it self is not evil, but indifferent, and so according to the Rule of Christian Liberty, lawful for him to do, or not to do, as he shall see cause (yea, and perhaps otherwise commodious and convenient for him to do) yet whereat he probably foreseeth the other will take Scandal, and be occasioned thereby to do evil. In such Case if the thing to be done, be not in some degree (at least prudentially) necessary for him to do; but that he might, without great inconvenience and prejudice to himself, and any third person, leave it undone, he is bound in Charity and Compassion to his Brothers Soul, (for whom Christ dyed) and for the avoiding of Scandal to abridge himself in the exercise of his Christian Liberty for that time so farr, as either to suffer some inconvenience himself by the not doing of it, then by doing of it to cause his Brother to offend; the very Case which is so often, and so largely, and so earnestly insisted upon by St. Paul, Romans xiv. 13,—21. & xv. 1,—3. 1 Cor. viii. 7,—13. & ix. 12, 22. & x. 23,—33. Here the Rule is, Do nothing that may be reasonably forborn, whereat it is like Scandal will be taken.
5. The Last way is, when a Man doth something before another, which is not only lawful, but (according to the exegencies of present circumstances pro hic & nunc) very behoofeful, and in some sort (prudentially) necessary for him to do; but foreseeth in the beholder a propension to make an ill use of it, and to take encouragement thereby to commit sin; if there be not withall a great care had to prevent, as much as is possible, the Scandal that might be taken thereat: for Qui non prohibet peccare, cum potest jubet. In such case the bare neglect of his Brother, and not using his utmost endeavour to prevent the evil that might ensue, maketh him guilty; upon which Consideration standeth the equity of the Iudicial Law given to the Iews, Exod xxi. 33, 34. which ordereth that in case a Man dig a Pit or Well for the use, of his Family, and (looking no farther then his own Conveniency) put no cover on it, but leave it open, whereby it happeneth his Neighbours Beast to fall therein and perish, the owner of the Pit is to make it good, in as much as he was the occasioner of that loss unto his Neighbour, which he might and ought to have prevented: In this last Case the thing is not (for the danger of the Scandal) to be left undone, supposing it (as we now do) otherwise behoofeful to be done; but the action is to be ordered, and carried on by us, for the manner of doing, and in all Respects and Circumstances thereunto belonging, with so much clearness, tenderness, and moderation, and wisdome, that so many as are willing to take notice of it, may be satisfied that there was on our part a reason of just necessity that the thing should be done; and that such persons as would be willing to make use of our example, without the like necessity, may do it upon their own score, and not be able to vouch our practice for their excuse; even as the Iew that stood in need to sink a pit for the service of his House and Grounds, was-not (for fear his Neighbours Beasts should fall into it and be Drowned) bound by the Law, to forbear the making of it, but only to provide a sufficient Cover for it, when he had made it. Here the Rule is, Order the doing of that, which may not well be left undone, in such sort, that no Scandal may, through your default, be taken thereat.
6. I do not readily remember any doubt that can occurr about the reason of Scandal, which may not be brought within the compass of these four Rules; and then the right applying some or other of these Rules, will give some furtherance towards the resolution of these doubts.
The CASE of A BOND taken in the KINGS Name: Proposed Iuly 1658.
R. C. Was seized in fee of certain Houses of small value, with the Appurtenances; and in the year 1635, whiles Owner of the said Houses, he entreated A. B. to be his Surety for One hundred Pounds; and continued the same at Interest till 1639. At which time he requested A. B. to discharge that Bond, and in consideration thereof, selleth the said Houses to A. B. and his Heirs for ever; the said R. C. also buyeth of a Merchant a parcel of Goods; the Merchant being a Receiver of some part of the late Kings Revenue, and under pretence of a priviledge thereby, taketh a Bond of the said R. C. for the payment of Two hundred pounds to himself, but in the Name of the late King, as if indebted to the King; and under that pretence, procureth an extent upon the Houses sold to A. B. and maketh seizure thereof: Was R. C. seized of the same, when he entred into that Bond?
The said King 1640. published a Proclamation, wherein he declared, That the taking of such Bonds, was contrary to His Intention, and an abuse of his Prerogative, and prohibited all such crafty Courses, as tending to the Oppression of his Subjects; and it is to be noted, that the said Proclamation was published two years before the extent was executed upon the Houses, which nevertheless have been held under that extent about fourteen years, which is beyond the value of the Houses.
The said R. C. died poor, the Merchant is dead also, without any Child, leaving an Estate behind him of Twenty thousand Pounds, as is supposed; a great part visible in Lands, as appeareth by his last Will upon Record.
Advice of Council at Law being taken, how the said A. B. may be most readily relieved; he is directed to Petition the present Supreme Power to pardon the Debt, because taken only in the Kings Name, when there is no Debt due to him from R. C.