Sect. 5. It will be said, that Papists have no ground nor reason to confirm any of their superstitions by the English ceremonies. But I answer: 1. If it were so, yet forasmuch as Papists draw them to a confirmation of their superstitions, we should abstain from them as appearances of evil. Eating (at a private banquet) of that which was sacrificed to idols, did confirm an idolator and infidel in his religion, as Pareus[380] noteth; yet from this the idolator had no reason to confirm himself in his idolatry; but because the idolator, seeing it, might draw it to a confirmation, the Apostle will have it for that respect forborne. When the Arians abused trin-immersion in baptism, to signify three natures of the three persons, Pope Gregory,[381] and the fourth council of Toledo ordained,[382] that in Spain, thrice washing should no longer be used in baptism, but once only. The Arians had no just reason to draw such a signification from the ceremony of trin-immersion, yet was it abolished when those heretics did so abuse it. If any say, that we are saved by the blood of the Son of man, the phrase is orthodox, because of the communication, or rather communion of properties, and the Nestorians cannot with good reason by it confirm their heresy, yet are we to abstain from this form of speech, in Zanchius's judgment, when it is drawn to the confirmation of that error.
I conclude with that which Parker[383] allegeth out of the Harmony of Confessions: Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt. Mark rapiuntur. 2. The ceremonies do indeed greatly countenance those superstitions of Papists, because communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione;[384] so that Papists get occasion from the ceremonies, of confirming, not only those popish rites which we have not yet received, but also the whole popish religion, especially since they see Conformists so siding with them against Non-Conformists, and making both their opinions [pg 1-096] and practices to be better than we reckon them to be.
Saravia,[385] perceiving how much the popish sacrament of confirmation is countenanced and confirmed by our bishoping, thinks it best to put the fairest face he can upon the Papists' judgment of that bastard sacrament. He would have us believe, that the Papists do not extol the dignity of the sacrament of confirmation above baptism. But he should have considered that which Cartwright[386] marketh out of the first tome of the councils, that in the epistle which is ascribed to Eusebius and Melciades, bishops of Rome, it is plainly affirmed, that the sacrament of confirmation “is more to be reverenced than the sacrament of baptism.”
Sect. 6. Zanchius hath another exposition of the appearance of evil, which doth also agree to the ceremonies. The appearance of evil which maketh scandal, and from which the Apostle would have us to abstain, may be taken generally of all sorts of sin, and all evil things whatsoever; for so we should abstain from all that which hath any appearance of evil; nullam proebentes occasionem proximo nostro aliquid mali de nobis suspicandi. He instanceth for example, the eating of idolothites in Paul's time, 1 Cor. x. Now if the eating of idolothite meats was an appearance of evil, and so scandalous, because it gave the weak occasion to suspect some evil of such as did eat them, much more idolothite rites which have not only been dedicated and consecrated to the honour of idols, but also publicly and commonly used and employed in idolatrous worship; surely whosoever useth such idolothites, gives great occasion to his brother to suspect some evil of him, because of such evil-favoured appearances. And thus we see how great appearance of evil is more than manifest in the ceremonies, which maketh the scandal active, if there were no more; but afterwards we shall see the ceremonies to be evil and unlawful in themselves, and so to be in the worst kind of active scandal.
Sect. 7. Two things are objected here by our adversaries, to make it appear that the scandal of conformity is not active nor faulty upon their part. 1. They say they are blameless, because they render a reason of that which they do, so that we may know the lawfulness of it. To this sufficient answer hath been made already by one whose [pg 1-097] answers I may well produce to provoke Conformists therewith, because no reply hath ever been made to them. “This (saith he[387]), if it be true, then see we an end of all the duty of bearing with the weak; of forbearing our own liberty, power, and authority in things indifferent, for their supportance; yea, an end of all the care to prevent their offence, by giving them occasion aut condemnandi factum nostrum, aut illud imitandi contra conscientiam,[388] which we have so often,[389] so seriously, with so many reasons, obtestations, yea, woes and threatenings, commanded to us throughout the word. What needed Paul to write so much against the scandal of meats, and against the scandal of idolothious meats? This one precept might have sufficed, let the strong give a reason for his eating, &c. Though he hath given many reasons to them of Corinth for the lawfulness of taking wages; though he hath given divers reasons for the lawfulness of all sorts of meats to them of Rome, yet neither will take wages himself, nor suffer others to eat all sorts of meats, when others are offended. And what is that which he writeth Rom. x.? Take and receive the weak for their supportance, and not for controversy and disputation,” &c.
It will be said that they are to be thought obstinate, who, after a reason given, are still scandalised. But the answer is in readiness: Fieri potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditæ, qui idcirco quamvis ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc propusillis.[390] They are rather to be thought obstinate in scandalising, who, perceiving the scandal to remain, notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that take not away the occasion of the scandal. But say some,[391] whoever ought to be esteemed weak, or not capable of reason, ministers must not be so thought of. Whereunto I answer with Didoclavius:[392] Infirmitatem in doctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, et superiorum temporum historia de dimicatione inter doctores ecclesiæ, ob ceremonias, idipsum probat. Parati etiam sunt coram Deo testari se non posse acquiescere [pg 1-098] in Formalistarum foliis ficulneis. The reason which they give us commonly is will and authority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such an one as cannot clear nor resolve our consciences. But let their reasons be so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being offended, notwithstanding of their reason? Dare they say that those who contended so much of old about the celebration of Easter, and about the feast of the Sabbath, were not weak, but obstinate and malicious, after a reason was given? Why consider they not, that “men may, for their science,[393] be profitable ministers, and yet fail of that measure of prudence whereby to judge of a particular use of indifferent things?”
Sect. 8. 2d. They say they give no scandal by the ceremonies, because they have no such intent as to draw any into sin by them. Ans. A scandalous and inordinate quality or condition of an action, any way inductive to sin, maketh an active scandal, though the doer have no intention to draw into sin. This I made good in my fourth proposition; and it is further confirmed by that great scandal whereby Peter compelled the Gentiles to Judaise, Gal. ii. 14. “He constrained them (saith Perkins[394]) by the authority of his example, whereby he caused them to think that the observation of the ceremonial law was necessary.” It was then the quality of his action which made the scandal active, because that which he did was inductive to sin, but we are not to think that Peter had an intention to draw the Gentiles to sin. Cardinal Baronius[395] laboureth to make Peter blameless, and his fact free of all fault; quia præter ipsius spem id acciderat, and it fell forth only ex accidenti et inopinato, ac præter intentionem ipsius. M. Ant. de Dominis[396] confuteth him well: Est scandalum et cum peccato, quando quis licet non intendat peccatum alterius, facit autem opus aut ex se malum aut apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet, consequuturum alterius peccatum, aut quodeunque malum: nam etiam dicitur illud voluntarium interpretative.
Sect. 9. I will yet descend more particularly to confute our opposites' several answers and defences, which they have used against our argument of scandal. And I [pg 1-099] begin with our Lord Chancellor: “As for the godly amongst us (saith he[397]), we are sorry they should be grieved; but it is their own fault, for if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it that should offend them?”
Ans. 1. He does not well express scandal (whereof he is there speaking) by grief; for I may be grieved, yet not scandalised, and scandalised, yet not grieved, according to my first proposition touching scandal.
2. To what purpose tells he it is their own fault? Thinks he that there are any offended without their own fault? To be offended is ever a fault,[398] as I show in my third and sixth propositions; so that if a scandal be not removed where it is men's own fault that they are offended, then no scandal shall ever be removed, because all who are scandalised commit a fault in being scandalised. Nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas; et ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam, saith Aquinas,[399] giving a reason why, in the definition of scandals, he saith not that it giveth cause, but that it giveth occasion of ruin.