Concerning Submission to Usurpers, Response 2
Object. 2. Scandal.
The next thing objected is,
The danger of the Scandal that others might be ready to take at the Example, who seeing the Law so little regarded by such men (men that have Cure of Souls, and perhaps also of some eminency and esteem in the Church, and whose Example will be much look'd upon) will be easily encourag'd by this Example to set light by all Authority, and to take the liberty to obey and disobey the Laws of their Soveraign at their pleasure.
But this Objection, after we are once satisfied concerning the former, need not much trouble us. For,
1. It seemeth an unreasonable thing in cases of great Exigence (such as we now suppose) that the fear of scandalizing our weak Brethren (which is but Debitum charitatis only) should lay upon us a peremptory necessity of observing the Law punctually, whatsoever inconveniencies and mischiefs may ensue thereupon: when the duty of Obedience to our known Governours (which is Debitum justitiae also, and therefore more Obligatory than the other) doth not impose that necessity upon us; as hath been already shewn.
2. Besides, Arguments drawn from Scandal in things neither unlawful nor (setting the reason of Scandal aside) inexpedient, as they are subject to sundry frailties otherwise, so they are manifestly of no weight at all, when they are counterpois'd with the apparent danger of evil consequents on the other side. For in such cases there is commonly equal danger (if not rather something more) of Scandal to be taken from the Example the quite contrary way. We may see it in debating the point now in hand: It is alledged on the one side, That by laying aside the use of the Common Prayer, men that are over scrupulous will be encourag'd to take a greater liberty in dispensing with the Laws (to the despising both of Laws and Governours) than they ought. And why may it not, by the same reason, be as well alledg'd on the other side, That by holding up a necessity of using the Common Prayer, men that have tender Consciences may be induc'd to entertain scruples (to their utter undoing, and to the destruction of their people) when they need not?
3. But that in the third place, which cometh up home to the business, and taketh off the Objection clearly, is this, That in judging Cases of Scandal, we are not so much to look to the event, what it is, or may be, as to 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 taken thereat. But no man is concern'd at any Scandal that happeneth to another by occasion of any thing done by him, neither is chargeable with it farther than he is guilty of having given it. If then we give Scandal to others, and they take it not, the whole guilt is ours, and they are faultless. If we give it, and they take it, we are to bear a share in the blame as they, and that a deep share; (Vae homini, Wo to the man by whome the offence cometh, Matth. 18. 7.) But if they take offence when we give none, it is a thing we cannot help, and therefore the whole blame must lie upon them.
Wherefore, if at any time any doubt shall arise in that Case of Scandal, How far forth the danger thereof may oblige us to the doing or not doing of any thing propos'd; The Resolution will come on much the easier, if we shall but rightly understand what it is to give Scandal, or how many ways a man may become guilty of scandalizing another by his Example.
The ways (as I conceive) are but these four.
1. When a man doth something before another, which is in it self evil, unlawful, and sinful. 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 matters not whether the doer hath an intention to draw the other into sin, or not; the very matter and substance of the action being evil, and done before others, is sufficient to render the doer guilty of having given Scandal, though neither he had intention himself so to do, nor was any other person actually scandaliz'd thereby: because whatsoever is in its own nature evil, is of it self, and in its own nature scandalous, and of ill Example.
Thus did Hophni and Phineas▪ the Sons of Eli, 1 Sam. 2. 17. 22.give Scandal by their wretched prophaneness and greediness about the Sacrifices of the Lord, and their shameless abusing the Women. And so did David also give great Scandal in the matter of Vriah, 2 Sam. 12. 14. Here the Rule is, Do nothing that is evil, for fear of giving Scandal.
2. 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 makes no difference as to the sin of giving Scandal, whether any man be effectually entic'd to commit sin or not thereby; neither doth it make any difference, whether the thing done were in it self unlawful, or not, so as it had an appearance of evil, and from thence an aptitude to draw another by the doing of that (by imitation) which should be really and intrinsecally evil. The wicked intention alone (whatsoever the effect should be, or what means soever should be us'd to promote it) sufficeth to induce the guilt of giving Scandal upon the doer. This was Ierohoam'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 unto Idolatrous Worship. For which cause he is so often stigmatiz'd with it, as a note of Infamy, to stick by him whilst the World lasteth, being scarce ever mention'd in the Scripture, but with this addition, Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin. Here the Rule is, Do nothing, good or evil, with an intention to give Scandal.
3. 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 whereas he probably foreseeth that others will take Scandal, and be occasioned thereby to do evil. In such a case, if the thing to be done be not in some degree prudentially necessary for him to do, but that he might, without very great inconvenience or prejudice to himself or any third person, leave it undone: He is bound in Charity to his Brother's Soul (for whom Christ died) and for the avoiding of Scandal, to abridge himself in the exercise of his Christian Liberty for that time, so far as rather to suffer some inconvenience himself by the not doing of it, than by the doing of it to cause his Brother to offend. The very Case which is so often, so largely, and so earnestly insisted upon by St. Paul. See Rom. 14. 13, 21. Rom. 15. 1, 3. 1 Cor. 8. 7, 13. 1 Cor. 9. 12, 15, 19, 22. 1 Cor. 10. 23. 33. Here the Rule is, Do nothing that may be reasonably forborn, whereat Scandal will be taken.
4. The last way is, when a man doth somthing before another, which is not only lawful, but (according to the exigencies of present Circumstances) pro hic & nunc very behoofful, and even prudentially necessary for him to do, but foreseeth that the other will be like to make an ill use of it, and take encouragement thereby to commit sin, if he be not withal careful, as much as possibly in him lieth, to prevent the Scandal that may 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 Judicial Law given to the Jews, which ordered,Exod. 21. 33, 34. That in case a man dig a Pit for the use of his Family, and looking no farther than his own convenience, put no cover upon it, and leave it open, whereby it hapneth his Neighbours Beast to fall thereinto and perish, the owner of the Pit is to make it good, inasmuch as he was the occasioner of that loss to his Neighbour, which he might and ought to have prevented. Here the Rule is Order the doing of that, which may not be well left undone, in such sort that no Scandal (so far as you can help it) may be taken thereat.
To apply this. The thing under debate, viz. the Action propos'd to present enquiry is, The laying aside the Common Prayer, being enjoyn'd by Law, and using instead thereof some other Form of Church Service of our own devising. And the Enquiry concerning it is, Whether it may be done with a good Conscience in regard of the Scandal that is given, or at least may be taken thereat, Yea or No?
Now forasmuch as in this Enquiry we take it for granted, That the thing to be done is not in its own nature simply evil, but rather in this state of affairs prudentially necessary; and that they who make scruple at it upon the point of Scandal, have not the least intention of drawing other of the Laws into contempt, or their Brethren into sin by their Example. It is manifest that three of the now mention'd Cases, with the Rules to each of them appending, are not pertinent to the present Enquiry. But since the last of the four only proveth to be our Case, we have therefore no more to do for the setling of our Judgments, and quieting of our Consciences, and the regulating of our Practice in this Affair, than to consider well what the Rule in this Case given obligeth us unto; which is not to leave the Action undone for the danger of Scandal, which (besides the Inconveniencies formerly mention'd) would but start new Questions, and those beget more to the multiplying unnecessary Scruples in infinitum: But to order the doing of it so, that (if it were possible) no Scandal at all might ensue thereupon, or at least wise not by our default, through our careless or undiscreet managery thereof. Even as the Jew that stood in need to sink a Pit for the service of his House or Ground, was not (for fear his Neighbours Beast should fall into it, and be drown'd) bound by the Law to forbear the making of it, but only to provide a sufficient cover for it, where he had made it. The thing then in this Case is not to be left undone, when it so much behoveth us to do it; but the Action to be carried on (for the manner of doing, and in all respects and circumstances thereunto belonging) with so much chariness and tenderness, moderation and wisdom (to our best understanding) that the necessity of our so doing, with the true cause thereof, may appear to the World, to the satisfaction of those that are willing to take notice of it; and that such persons as would be willing to make use of our Ensample to do the same thing, where there is not the same necessity, may do it upon their own score, and not be able to vouch our practice for their excuse; which how it may be best done for particular directions, every charitable and conscientious man must ask his own discretion. Some general helps thereunto I shall lay down in answering the next Objection, where they would fall in again not improperly, and so stop two Gaps with one Bush.