OF scandal.  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
The second Edition.  
OXFORD, Printed by HENRY HALL Printer to the university. 1646.   

OF scandal.  
§ 1 HE that would know the true proper full importance of the word scandal or Offence, or to be Offended or scandalised (as they are taken for the same) need not seek into many authors for it. The new Testament, and the apocryphal books, and the Greek translation of the old Testament, are the prime authors that have used these words, and all other later Christian writers may justly be thought to have had them from that fountain; ancient profane writers not affording them. § 2 From hence 'twill be sure just to infer, that in as many senses as the scripture canonical & Apocry phall hath used the words, in so many they may be justly used, and in no more. Now the uses of the word scandal among them are either natural (as generally in the old Testament,) or borrowed, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  i. e. metaphorical, (as chiefly in the new.) It naturally signifies 3 things. 1. A Trapp, a Gin, or Snare to catch any thing: So in the Greek translation of Psal. § 3 69. 22. the word is used, (being joined with 2 other words which signify snare and gin, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ) and in our new translation is rendered a trapp: wherefore in the place of Rom. 11. 9 where the same words are cited out of the Septuagints translation, and not out of the Hebrew text of the psalm, I should conceive it should be rendered by analogy, not stumbling blocks, but gi'en, or some other word belonging to this first signification. In this sense it is used 1 Mac. 5. 4. where it is all one with snare, and it is farther interpreted by (laying wait by the way) to catch them treacherously. So again Wisd: 14. 11. the word is used, and explained by another word, signifying a trapp, or snare, the very same that was used in the psalms, and to the Romans.  
§ 4 2. It signifies any Obstacle or hindrance laid in a man's way, by which the passenger is detained or stopped, peculiarly a sharp Stake, such as in time of war men were wont to put in the fields where their enemy should follow, to wound their feet or legs in their passage: against which being so ordinary in war, they anciently used greaves of brass to defend their feet or legs. 1 Sam: 17. 6. to which you may refer that epithet so frequent in Homer, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: to signify those greaves brazen or otherwise, that the Grecians used; described by that Poet, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} made of tin, and covering the whole leg to the knee, of so firm a substance that it made a loud noise at the stroke of the weapon on it. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} saith he. Thus is the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used, Judith. 5. 1. where we render it impediments, a word somewhat too general to signify those sharp stakes or other instruments to wound or gall the passengers, which are known to everybody: for which I believe we have some proper English word, I think it is a gall trapp.  
§ 5 3ly. The word signifies a stone or block in the way, at which men are apt (if they be not careful, or if they go in the dark) to stumble and fall: and thereupon in the old Testament it is taken for a fall: and so sometimes for sin, the fall of the soul, as Judith 12. 2. (where these words [left it be an offence] would more clearly be rendered out of the Greek, left it become an offence, 1. a sin or pollution, as you may see in the same matter which is there treated of Dan. 1. 8. Tob. 1. 11. and 1 Sam. 25. 31.) and sometimes for ruin or destruction, the fall of the whole person, which we are brought to by sin, as Judith 5. 20. our English renders it ruin, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  and Ps. 49. 13. where though we read folly, the Septuagint read scandal, by that rendering an Hebrew word which signifies both folly and ruin. I confess this last acception of the word for ruin, is somewhat rare (yet authorised by our English in the place of Judith) and therefore if any dislike it, I shall not stand much upon it; because in both those places last mentioned it may well enough signify sin, as that is a snare or stumbling block, an occasion of ruin, or falling, or destruction, in which sense I conceive 'tis used, Judg: 8. 27. where 'tis rendered a snare, i. e. a sin ensnaring or occasioning ruin.  
§ 6 Beside these 3 significations, in which the word in Greek retained in our Language, is read in the old Testament, I am confident there is no other, save once Psal. 50. 20, for slander, or calumny, or defamation, (for so the Hebrew there signifies) a sense which is vulgar amongst us in English; 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  by a scandal meaning a slander: but that sense being but once met with in the whole Bible, or twice at most (Eccl. 27. 23. where yet I conceive the translation might be mended) will not deserve to be taken into consideration.  
§ 7 Now for the use of the word in the new Testament: 'tis first observable, that the best nomenclature for hard words in that is the observing the use of them in the Greek of the old, for the writers of the new Testament, being Jew's not greeks, wrote in an idiom proper and peculiar to them only, and those other Jews that wrote also in Greek, somewhat differing from that of the Attic, or natural Greek writers. And therefore we may well resolve, that the uses of the word, which we have there found and already observed, will be very instrumental to the understanding of the same word, and others derived from it in the new Testament. And so much the rather because, as I said, no profane Greek writer before the scripture, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  is known to have used it; only Arist ophanes once a word near it. This being premised, 'twill be worth our pains (at least by so doing we shall put the whole matter beyond exception) to survey briefly all the places in the new Testament, where the word is used.  
§ 8 To that end I shall begin with the first in my Concordance which is Matt. 13. 41. the angels shall gather out all scandals: 'tis in a sense borrowed from the second mentioned signification of a sharp stake, which he who hath once met with and been galled by it, is wont to gather up and cast into the fire, as there it follows the Angels for our sakes should do, v: 24. (to which Saint Paul also seems to allude 2 Cor: 11. 29. in putting scandalising and burning together) and denotes simply whatsoever may wound or gall us in our Christian course, and by that means foreslow our pace, cause us to slacken, or give over, or lie down in the service of Christ, so Mat. 17. 27. Christ pays tribute, that he may not offend the Jews, i. e. that they might not think him a Contemner of the Temple, to which the Tribute was due, and so forsake and not believe in him; that he might not discourage them from following him. So Mat. 15. 12. the Pharisees hearing a doctrine that galled them particularly, were offended and forsook him, that doctrine drove them away from following him. So again (Mat. 18. 7.) it must needs be that offences come, which seems to refer to false doctrines and heresies, if you compare that verse with 1 Cor: 11. 19 there must he Heresies (and Rom. 16. 17. where offences are said to be contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, and that they must be avoided, as the heretic must Tit: 3. 10.) 
So in Polycarpus' Epist. to the Philipp. p. 20. where {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is joined with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c.  the venting of which of all things most hinders others in their Christian course, but whether it be meant peculiarly of Heresies, or exemplary sins, it matters not. To which soever you apply it, another place, Luk. 17. 1. will belong unto it also, being the place directly parallel to it. So Mat: 18. 6. He that shall offend one of these little ones. i. e. he that shall occasion their falling off into any sin; or, which the place especially imports, by contemning them, discourage them from the study of piety. For so on the contrary side to receive them, v. 5. is by Saint Mark 9 41. expressed to consist in doing them kindness, to encourage them in the ways of godliness. So Christ crucified is said a scandal to the Jews, i. e. they that were otherwise not ill opinioned of him, and so followed him with the multitudes, when they saw him crucified, were quite discouraged, and fell away from him, (as they that are so galled by those stakes are fain to give over the pursuit, to return) and so resolved, seeing him die, that he was not the Messiah whom they expected, a glorious temporal deliverer. To which belongs that notable place Mat. 11. 6. Luk: 7. 23. Blessed is he that shall not be offended in me, i. e. shall not be galled and discouraged, and so fall off by seeing the sufferings that befall me, and await my disciples or followers. So again Mat: 13. 57 Mark. 6. 3. It is said, that the consideration of his known and mean birth occasioned their being offended in him, i. e. their deserting and not believing of him, when the miracles which he had done inclined them somewhat to a valuing of him. So John 6. 61. When Christ talks of eating the flesh of the son of man, they were offended, (that is) that speech carnally understood (either that Christ was to die, (which the eating his flesh presupposed, and they did not like to hear of; dreaming of a temporal glorious Messiah) or that they were to turn cannibals, and eat man's flesh,) discouraged them from following him, at least from taking him for the Messiah. So Gal: 5. 11. persecution is called the scandal of the cross, or that upon which so many are discouraged from professing the crucified Saviour, according to that in the parable of the sour, Mat: 13. 21. Mark: 4. 17. upon the coming of persecution presently he is offended, i. e. galled and falls off, and Mat. 24. 10. on the same occasion, and in the same sense. So Mat. 26. 31. Mark. 14. 27. this night (to wit of my attachment) Ye shall all be offended because of me. i. e. fall back, for sake me: and so in Saint Peter's answer, v. 23. Although all men should be offended, yet will I never be offended: upon which, that which Christ rejoins (before the cock crow; i. e. before morning, or day break, all one with this night, v 31. thou shalt deny me thrice) is an interpretation of the word offended, and shows, that to be offended, is to deny Christ. And so Joh. 16. 1. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended; where Christ foretells the persecutions that should befall them, that they might be forewarned too, and not fall off, when they befall them.  
§ 9 These are the chief, if not all the places to which the second old Testament acception of the word scandal in a metaphorical borrowed sense belongs, and of all of them, and each, you may observe.  
§ 10 1. That scandal signifies either some sin, the occasion of farther sin in others; or else somewhat else, which though it be not sin, yet occasions sin in others, though very indirectly sometimes, as the cross of Christ: and whether in one or other, the rule will be, that he that is offended or scandalised, doth directly commit some sin, and that, for most of the places, the sin of infidelity, or forsaking, or denying Christ.  
§ 11 2. That the being scandalised, falling off from Christ, (or the effect which follows that occasion,) hath no reflection or influence (in any of the places) on that which was the occasion; so as to make it sinful or avoidable, if it were not so before, (as will appear to any that will survey the places) and consequently that another's being scandalised is not sufficient to lay a charge on him whose action (otherwise not chargeable or criminous) was the occasion of his being scandalised. Let the cross of Christ, with which so many were in this sense scandalised, suffice for a proof of this.  
§ 12 Other places there are which must be interpreted by bringing the metaphor from the first of the 3 senses, as it signifies a snare or gin to catch one in. So Mat. 16. 23. Thou art an offence unto me, i. e. by expressing thy detestation against my sufferings, thou labourest to bring me into an horror and fear of suffering, and so in effect temptest me to sin; where you must mark, that though Peter were an offence to Christ, that is, tempted him, laboured to ensnare him, yet Christ was not scandalised, offended, ensnared, or overcome by the temptation. In the same sense is that Revel: 2. 14. of Balaam who taught Balaack {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, we render it to cast a stumbling block; but sure it is most clearly, to lay a snare before the Children of Israel, to entice them by their Daughters to Idolatry, and by Idolatry to entrap and destroy them.  
§ 13 In this sense scandal is so perfectly all one with Temptation, that, as a learned man hath observed, 
Lud: de Deiu {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  the Aethiopic interpreter of the new Testament, instead of scandal puts a word that signifies Temptation, 
from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  and the same that in the Lord's prayer is put for Temptation: in this sense is that of the eye and the foot offending us. Mat. 5. 29. 18. 8. Mark: 9 47. i. e. when a man's eye, or any other member of his body proves a snare to him, an inlet to temptations, a means of bringing him to any sin.  
§ 14 And of those places you may observe again. 1. That no man is said to be offended, but he that commits the sin to which he is tempted, and therefore Christ is not said to be offended, that is, really to be wrought upon by that scandal: but as Satan tempted him, Matth. 4. yet he yielded not, but overcame the tempter: So here he uses that other Satan: for to have been offended in this sense had been all one with being overcome by a temptation.  
§ 15 2. That the Agent, or he that is said to lay the snare or to offend, sinneth also (as in all the places it will de facto appear that they did) though nobody be taken in it, as he that tempteth to evil commits a sin, though his temptation prove not effectual. The setting of a snare being a positive act, a note of a treacherous design, though it do not succeed. And therefore in 1 Macchab. 1, 36. the laying of snares for to entrap the Israelites, or bring them from observing the Law, is called there by the devil's name, an evil Adversary, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  or as the Greek hath it, a devil to Israel.  
§ 16 A third and last sort of places there are that refer to the third mentioned acception of the word, as it signifies a stumbling block, so when the word stone is joined with it, or the Greek word that signifies stumbling, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  so Rom. 9 33. Christ is called a stumbling block, a rock of offence, i. e. an occasion of fall, or sin in many, and consequently of increasing their condemnation, as he saith, if he had not come, &c. they had not had sin, i. e. had not been so great sinners, had not been guilty of the great sin of unbelief, and crucifying of Christ: and therefore Simeon prophecies of Christ, that he would be for the fall of many in Israel; many sins his coming should be the occasion of. So Rom. 14. 13. That no man lay a stumbling block, or scandal (which we render an occasion of falling) in his brother's way, that is, do or practise any thing, that may bring another that comes after him, upon his nose, or to commit any sin. So 1 Pet. 2. 8. Christ is called a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, at which to stumble is to be disobedient to Christ, so Ro. 14. 21. stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak, i. e. by following thee, doth fall, commits some sin, doth some act unlawful for him, (though simply it were not for thee; it being against his Conscience, though not against thine) and so by falling bruises & weakens himself, makes himself less able for God's service, than he was: for so every sin against Conscience being a grieving the spirit, is consequently the spiritual weakening of the man, or if you will (as in St James {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies c. 5. 14.) the wound or disease of the soul. So again, 1 Cor. 8. 9 stumbling block to the weak, & v. 13. where the case is clearly the same that we last mentioned: that if any man by doing any indifferent thing (which he in Conscience is informed to be perfectly lawful for him to do) shall occasion another man's sin by doing that after him which he is not resolved to be lawful, that man offends against that charity due to his brother, and therefore must think fit to deny himself the use of that liberty which Christ hath given him. To this may belong that other place, 1 Jo. 2. 10. where that phrase (there is no scandal in him) seems to signify, falls not into those sins that ignorant men or uncharitable (who are said in the Antithesis, v. 11. to walk in the dark) are subject unto. One place more there is belonging to this purpose, where though the word scandal be not used in the Text, yet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, offence, is used, and that I confess to be all one, and it is 2 Cor. 6. 3. giving no offence in any thing; where yet offence is interpreted by Beza, quippiam ad quod possint impingere any thing that others may stumble at, or be aliened from the gospel by; as if we fail in any Christian duty (mentioned v. 4. 5. 6.) they that see us, would be apt to do: and so that which follows imports also (that the ministry be not blamed) that is, that our Actions be not justly reprehended or found fault with, but in all things approving ourselves, &c.  
§ 17 And of this third sort of places 'tis observable again, 1. that be that is offended, sins himself, stumbles, and falls, and bruises himself, and 2. that he that is the occasion of his fall doth not always sin (for Christ, and grace, and that which should have been for their wealth, proves to many an occasion of falling) but yet sometimes he doth: as if he purposely in a matter indifferent, when he might have chosen, doth any thing which another whose Conscience is doubtful, doth after him▪ and so sins; nay if he do not abstain from that indifferent action, when he sees that consequent likely to follow; nay if he be not careful to observe, whether the consequent be likely to follow, and if so, to abstain. This third sort of scandal you see is applied peculiarly to one kind of actions, those by the doing of which another coming after, and doing the same, falls into sin, as when either the example was sinful, or being indifferent in itself is against the other man's conscience, and so being imitated by him, is in him a sin against conscience, and not indifferent. And then  
§ 18 Another sort of actions there are which may though not so directly, yet not improperly be referred to this head, as, when I do any thing in its self not unlawful, yet very apt to be mistaken by other men, for somewhat else which is unlawful; and see it strongly probable, that those which will be apt so to mistake, will be as apt also by occasion of this action of mine, to commit that other sin which they conceive me to have committed, or to confirm and harden themselves in that sin thorough that mistaken example of mine, which they might otherwise probably have reformed, if they had not received encouragement by this action of mine; And if question be made, what is to be thought of this. I answer, that although I am not sure that that place of Scripture in our English Bibles which commands [to abstain from all appearance of evil,] 
1 Thess. 5. 22.  doth come home to this purpose, (because {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which we render [from all appearance] may bear another sense, and signify no more than from every kind or sort of evil, for so both the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and Latin species import; and with all, appearance of evil is so uncertain, and inconstant a thing, that to abstain from it universim cannot be matter of any possible command. And again, though I dare not from that other precept of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, whatsoever is of good report, Phil. 4. 8. conclude it unlawful to do any thing which hath the ill luck to be of ill report, i. e. to be mistaken for a sin (because 1. there is no prohibition in that place interdicting the doing of every thing which is of ill report, 2. no analogy of other Christian rules to infer such prohibition, it being rather the fate of all Christian virtues to be evil spoken of, and the receiving the praise of men, being branded by Christ as unreconcilable with believing, 3. because some actions of Christ were of ill report, particularly that of eating and drinking with publicans and sinners, (which rendered him suspected for a glutton) and that of casting out of Devils (which was defamed for sorcery or compact with Beelzebub,) 4. because that which is of ill report with one, may be of good report with a thousand others, and there the judgement of that one will not be considerable against those thousand to defame an innocent laudable action) yet still I conceive that the great obligation to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, loving of all men, and desiring the good of their souls, which lies upon all Christians (by force of Christ's example, and legacy, and precept of charity) will extend so far, as to have the force of precept, that every man abstain from such purely indifferent actions (being so in themselves, and then by the Magistrate uncommanded) which he foresees will be thus mistaken for unlawful by those who are likely to be moved by his example to commit those sins which they conceive him to have committed; this being an inseparable attendant of my charity to my brother's soul, to use all lawful means which my conscience tells me will be to his ghostly health, or preservation.  
§ 19 mean while some diff●rence may be observed in things indifferent, some being commendable, though not commanded; of use, though not of necessity; and such as extra causam scandali I should on pious considerations be moved to choose, or practice: and in this case, if it be demanded whether that sole fear of scandal ought to restrain me from that which all other motives rather incline me to, and so make me abstain; or whether I should rather claim the privilege of my Christian liberty, and that make me not to abstain. I answer, that a middle course may yet be better, than either extreme crudely taken: that is, that I ought to do my best to free this laudable indifferent action of mine from the evil colour that it is capable of, by rectifying his judgement whom I discern to be mistaken in it, and by declaring (either expressly, or by some significative character of my intentions fastened to my action) the clearness and innocency of my purposes to any other that may be so mistaken; and by so doing if I cannot free myself from his uncharitable censure, yet I shall be sure to keep him from any danger of following me to that sin; for sure my very disclaiming of that sin which he suspects me guilty of, will divest that sin of all authority which it may receive from my committing it, and not invite, but rather deter and fortify others from falling into that sin, which they see disavowed and disliked by me. For if my authority be of any force with them, it will persuade them to abstain from that which I disclaim, and profess myself to hate (who certainly know my own mind best) rather then to do, what they only conceive I do, but I profess I do not. And therefore the case being thus set of the commendable useful indifferent, not of the mere frivolous unconsiderable, when the use and gain of my action to me is certain, and the danger of being mistaken by others at most but possible, and that also preventable by these other means, neither piety nor prudence will advise to abstain from that healthful food, which if it be by accident unhealthful by others, hath yet an antidote administered with it. Which will be yet farther heightened also, if this laudable indifferent fall out to be such as the examples of holy men in scripture, or the practice of the Church in purer times have given countenance to, especially if the perpetual current of antiquity have commended it to us: for certainly these will be of great authority with all prudent pious men, and the more early and Catholic that practice, the greater that authority.  
§ 20 'Tis true, very strict rules in many particulars the Judaical law of the old Testament did prescribe, forbidding many indifferent things, on this only ground, because the using them might seem a compliance with the heathen customs of Idolaters. Such was that prohibition Ex. 34. 26. thou shalt not seethe a kid in the mother's milk, in the sacrifice of the in-gathering; given no doubt in opposition to the Gentile practice of those which at the time of gathering in their fruits, solemnly used this custom of seething a kid in the dams milk, and then in a magical way sprinkled their trees and fields, and gardens with it to make them fructify the next year, as Abrab●nel, and others out of Jewish writers have observed. Such was also the prohibition. Lev. 19 27. against rounding the corners of their heads, in reference to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the round cut used by the Arabians, 
Thal. c. 8.  saith Herodotus, and thereupon forbidden the Jews, and a woe pronounced Jere. 9 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. on every one that was so cut round, Si adjuverit tonsorem, 
De Idol. c. 12.  saith Maimonides, if he directed, or willingly permitted the Barber to put him into that heathenish guise: And many others in the Old Testament of the like nature, and the following Rabbins have added many more directions, if not precepts of the same nature. That one book of Maimonides concerning Idolatry will furnish the Reader with store of examples: but some such as do not so well become the gravity of that author; 
c. 3.  as that, If the Jew hath a thorn in his foot, when he is near an idol he must not stoop to take it out. 
c. 7.  If a tree have been worshipped, or an idol set in it, it is not lawful to sit in the shade of the trunk or body of that tree, though of the boughs or leaves it be lawful, if there be any other way it is not lawful to pass under it; if none, than he must run by it, Dionysius Vossius in his notes on that author hath added some parallel passages out of other Jewish writers as that of R. Menasse. who being showed an idol, did in contempt cast stones at it, which action of his, because the Image was the image of Mercury (who was wont to be worshipped by the Heathens after that manner, by throwing stones at it, or scattering stones before him, to which custom or ceremony the mercurial Statues refer, saith Phornutus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was therefore noted, accused, brought before the Judge, and by him pronounced to be unlawful, because it was the proper worship of that idol, though used in despite, not civility by that man. So again, if there be but one way to an Idolatrous City, it is unlawful to go that way, Aboda Zara c. 1.§. 4. and so, saith he, the Hebrews in Robbot mention a tradition, that the reason why Mordochai would not bow to Haman was because there was woven in his garment the image of a false God.  
§ 21 Some instances also might perhaps be brought out of the practice of the ancient Christian Church (mentioned by Tertullian de Cor. mil.) to this purpose of abstaining from things indifferent, for fear of any appearing compliance with the Heathens. Of which yet it must be observed 1 that this was in things of no manner of spiritual use or profit, neither commendable, nor advantageous, in things of ancient Christian prescription, or practise of purer times. 2 that it was in matters of such a quality, as that compliance would have seemed a dissembling or renouncing of the Christian faith, (and not of imitating of former purer Christians) and so contrary to that great Christian duty of confessing Christ before men, which they could not be said to do, who when that confession was persecuted, did thus comply with or not profess open dislike of the actions of those persecutors. And so those instances will not be so proper to the matter of scandal, as to that other head of Christian duty the necessity of confessing of Christ before men, (those especially who are the greatest oppugners of him, to which matter also those other Judaical instances do belong) unless that non-confessing of Christ, may by the example scandalize also. 3 That the same men thought it not amiss, or unlawful at other times to comply with other as great enemies of Christianity, as the Gentiles, namely with the Jews in observation of some of their out-dated ceremonies, nay thought themselves obliged so to do, when in prudence they conceived it more likely to gain those enemies by that means, then to confirm them in their dislikes of Christianity, or drive others to those dislikes. 4 That even with the Heathen themselves they could in other things think fit to comply also, when prudence dictated that compliance as more instrumental to Christian policy; and from these premises 5 that this whole matter is to be referred to the Christians pious discretion or prudence, it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action (remaining such) according as that piety, and that prudence shall represent it to be most charitable and beneficial to other men's souls; and he that shall not thus regulate his actions by what he is convinced will be thus most conducting to that grand Christian end, the saving, or not destroying, or not suffering sin upon his brother, shall not by me be excused from the guilt and blame of having scandalised his brother in this last new Testament sense, at least in some other which is not far distant from it; though after all this it must be observed, that he which thus is betrayed to, or confirmed in any sin by conceiving me to have committed it, when I have not, (this easy prostitute seducible sinner who will thus sin upon any, upon no occasion) is not Saint Paul's weak, i. e. doubtful-conscienced Christian, of whom he takes such care, that he should not be scandalised.  
§ 22 For such is he only, that for want of knowledge of his just Christian liberty, thinks it unlawful to do those things, which being indifferent in themselves, are only unlawful to him, which believes them so, or is not satisfied that they are lawful; This weakness in faith, (a kind of disease of the mind, and so in the new Testament phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) being only want of knowledge or of orthodox instruction, as will appear by comparing Rom. 14. with 1 Cor. 8. where the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in one, is all one with the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the other, weakness in faith, with want of knowledge.  
§ 23 The only matter of question or difficulty behind in this particular will be, why those who are in such Judaical errors are sometimes appointed by St Paul to be so tenderly handled, not to be vilified, or set at nought Ro. 14. 3. but care taken that they be not scandalised in the end of that chapt: and 1 Cor. 8. and yet in the Epistle to the Galatians, they are by the Apostle reviled [O foolish &c.] c. 3. 1. and chid and reproached out of their Judaical performances, and no care taken of not scandalising them. The answering of this will require us to consider the different estate of those Galatians from those Romans. The Galatians had been formerly Gentiles, and (though as it seems not improbable from Gal. 4. 9 formerly converted to Judaism, yet) by Saint Paul thoroughly converted from thence and baptised into Christianity, as that is opposite both to Judaism and gentilism also, i. e. fully instructed by him in the nature of Christian doctrine, and liberty, and had given up their hearts as well as names unto it, only after they had been begotten by Saint Paul in the gospel, had begun in the spirit, Gal. 3. 3. had come to an absolute abrenunciation of all their former Jewish persuasions, and to some good progress in Christianity, some false Judaizing teachers began to corrupt & poison them, Gal. 3. 1. & 5. 7 and to bring them back again to that yoke, that they had been taught to cast off; and these taires the Apostle could hope by reprehensions and sharpness to root out without endangering the wheat, and therefore sets severely and heartily to it, thinks not fit either in civility or charity to use any compliances, or descendings, or softer medicines, (knowing their errors to be contrary to the doctrine to which they had been baptised, and consequently that they might in reason give place unto it, and there was no fear that the rooting out of these would root out Christianity with them, as it might probably do, if they had been sowed or planted together, but employs all his vehemence and bowels of kindness toward them, in conjuring out that evil spirit that had so lately got possession of them, and doubts not but Christianity that was earlier planted in them, (and that by him who had begotten them in the gospel, and so had a paternal authority with them) than these vain legal dreams, that some false teachers had lately instilled into them, might be able to survive them also. And in this case being to deal with adversaries and false teachers, not with weaklings, but corrupters, had the Apostle used any compliance, had he circumcised Titus Gal. 2. 3. (as at another time he did Timothy) had he then given place but for an hour, v. 5. suspended the use of his liberty then, when liberty was decried, this had been scandalous in the Apostle, this had probably been the confirming of the erroneous, the encouraging of the adversary, the misleading of the doubtful, shaking the faithful, and disturbing what he had before settled among them.  
§ 24 Whereas on the other side the Romans at their first conversion to Christianity had not all of them been taught to put off the opinion of the necessity of legal abstinences {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, saith Saint Chrysostom in prooem. ad ep ad Rom. but continued their obligation to the law after receiving of the faith. being some of them (as may appear by the matter of Saint Paul's disc●urse to them, in the former part especially of that Epistle) natural Jews, dispersed thither; who could not be easily brought to assent to such doctrine, but would probably have refused to embrace Christianity, if it had been offered them on such hard conditions, some others of them (who were Gentiles by birth) being perhaps proselytes to Moses and Christ together, partakers of the infelicity of those who are mentioned, Act: 15. 5. that by the doctrine of the Pharisee. Christians (or believers of the sect of the Pharisees) had at their entrance on the faith, a necessity of receiving Judaism also pressed upon them. This Saint Paul testifies clearly of Saint Peter, Gal. 2. 14. that he constrained the Gentiles to Judaize, to receive the mosaical as well as Christian law, and himself durst not converse or eat with the Gentiles whilst any Jewish Christians were by, v. 12. by which whether doctrine or compliance of Saint Peter, it was no strange thing if it came to pass, that those which were by him converted to the faith, (as Eusebius and other ecclesiastic historians agree that the Romans were, vid. Ec. hist. l. 2. c: 14, & 15.) although they were Christians in the positive part, acknowledging so much as was answerable to the now-articles of the Creed, &c. yet being not so in the negative, concerning the evacuating of the Judaical law (but rather persuaded of the contrary) could no more eat swine's flesh, than a mere Jew could do; and therefore 'tis Saint Chrysostome's opinion that these being so wedded to those Judaical observances, rather than they would eat forbidden flesh, would in universum eat no flesh at all, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and so came to eat nothing but herbs, Rom. 14. 2.  
§ 25 Of these therefore that were thus weak in faith, v. 1. that is either infirm, feeble, uninstructed Christians, babes not men; or else; (as the fathers enlarge the sense, and as weakness {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} mostly imports in the new Testament) sick & diseased in mind, brought up in this Judaical error, the Apostle Ro. 14. gives these directions. 1. That the stronger, healthfuller, i. e. more knowing and more Orthodox Christians should {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (the vulgar read assumere) take them to them, first friendly to afford them communion, and not separate from them for this error, 2. labour to cure their malady, get them out of their error, and not leave them in the pride and folly of their own hearts, to judge and censure those who have done nothing amiss, but rather desire their good (which Saint Chrysostom understands by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and so Saint Jerome also, intending it thus, Nolite secundum vestras cogitationes, quae lex non judicat judicare, alias enim credit &c.) and from that verse observes, that though the Apostle exhorts the strong, yet he covertly reprehends, and on their backs as it were whips, the weak or erroneous Judaizers, first in saying they are sick, 2. in bidding {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is an evidence saith he, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that they are in very ill case, and 3. in mentioning {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which notes (saith he) that they judge and censure those that least deserve it, and that are willing to communicate with them, and labour the curing of them; and indeed that these weak ones did so judge the strong is plain, v. 3. where the exhortation is distinct, let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth.) 2. That the knowing again should not vilify or set at nought the weaker [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} v. 3.] not call him Racha, empty senseless fellow, not reproach or scoff at his scrupulous conscience, but in charity suppose it to proceed from want of knowledge only, and consequently to have the excuse and benefit of that gospel antidote, weakness or ignorance to plead for it, 3. That the stronger Christians (which although they have liberty, yet are not obliged always to make use of it) abstain from those lawful enjoyments which those weak ones, which count them unlawful, may yet by their example be emboldened against Conscience to venture on.  
§ 26 But then on the other side, the weak or sick erroneous Christian, that cannot with a good Conscience use that liberty himself, is commanded. 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that he do not judge or censure the strong, upon a reasons: 1. because {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, v. 3. God hath by calling him to the faith, assumed or received the strong (as that strong had been exhorted to do the weak v. 1.) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to friendship or communion first, (as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is used Philem. 12.) then to help and cure him of his former defect or disease, and bring him to perfect health & growth in Christianity: and 2dly. because he is God's servant and domestic, and stands and falls to his own Master v. 4. 2ly. That he be sure never to do any thing against Conscience, or which he is not fully persuaded in mind, that it is lawful for him.  
§ 27 Having thus seen the state of those Romans, it will be superfluous to add much about the Corinthians in the almost parallel place 1 Cor. 8. This only difference will be worth noting between them, that (as there were two sorts of proselytes among the Jews, one of Justice, or of those that undertook the observation of the whole Judaical law; the other of the Gates, those that received only the precepts of the sons of Noah, of which the abstaining from things offered to Idols was one, and as when the difference was betwixt the brethren, Act. 15. whether the Gentile-converts should be circumcised v. 1. i. e. be admitted proselytes of Justice, or only receive the 7 precepts of Noah, abstain from things offered to Idols etc: v. 19 it was determined in the council of the Apostles, that it should suffice, if they were proselytes of the gates, and therefore they tell them that if they thus be entered, abstain from things offered to idols, &c. they shall do well, so) the Romans being either Jews, or under the first head of Jewish proselytes, in St Chrysostom's opinion, and so thinking themselves bound to all legal Mosaical abstinences, the Corinthians were only under the second, and so by their principles, which they had received of those, who converted, baptised, and begot them in the faith, (and that according to the result of that Apostolic consultation Act. 15.) did continue to think it unlawful to eat any thing offered to Idols, or that came from an idol feast (which yet by the way St Paul resolves was but an error in them, 1 Cor. 8. 4. and by that judgement of his you see the unobligingness of that interdict, Act. 15.) and therefore (in like manner, as before) those, that were better instructed than they, aught to have that charity to them, as not to do any thing in their presence which might by the example draw them to venture on that which was against their conscience, especially considering, that they had not knowledge or understanding enough to judge how nothing an idol was v: 7.  
§ 28, Having thus compared the Romans and Corinthians with the Galathians, and given some account of the reason of their different usage, it will not be amiss to add what St Chrysostom observes to be the cause of the like difference in Saint Paul's behaviour to the Colossians from that forementioned to the Romans. It is a special passage in his prooeme to the Epistles. Where having mentioned the order wherein the Epistles were written, different from the order of setting them in our books, concludes that this was no unprofitable disquisition, for thereby many passages in the book would be interpreted: As, that Rom. 14. he condescends to the weak brethren, but not so Col. 2. which saith he was for no other reason, but because, that to the Romans was written before the other, and therefore as physicians and Masters deal not so sharply with scholars or Patients at first, as afterwards, so the Apostle in the beginning {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, adding that he was not so familiar with the Romans as yet, having never been amongst them at the time of writing that Epistle to them, as appeareth Ro. 115.  
§ 29 By all this 'tis clear indeed, that those which are thus weak (either in the notion of babes or sick men) so that they are not able to discern lawful from unlawful (as the idol to be nothing 1 Cor. 8. 7.) merely for want of sufficient instruction, or somewhat proportionable to that, principles of understanding, or the like; but especially if they received those errors or mistakes together with their Christianity from the Apostle, or from the Church which gave them baptism, they must then, 1 in meekness be instructed, and cured of their ill habit of soul: 2. not be vilified or reproached: yea thirdly be so charitably considered, that till they have received satisfaction of conscience and reformation of error, we are not to do any thing in their presence, that may by the example bring them to do what their conscience is not persuaded to be lawful, or if we do, we are said to scandalize a weak brother, i. e. an erroneous Christian. But then withal 'tis as clear: 1 That those who have first received the true doctrine, and are for some good time rooted in it, that are otherwise taught by the Church that gave them baptism, are not within the compass of this the Apostles care, but (as the Galathians) to be reprehended, chid, and shamed out of their childish errors, these diseases of soul that their own itching ears have brought upon them: 2 That they that have knowledge in other things, nay are able to distinguish as critically as any, even to divide a person from himself, and obey one when they assault the other, (and by their subtlety in other matters demonstrate their blindness in this one to be the effect of malice, of passion, of lusts, of carnality, and not of any blameless infirmity or impotence,) are again excluded from the Apostles care: and so thirdly that they that are come to these errors by the infusions of false teachers, which not the providence of God but their own choice hath helped them to, preferring every new poison before the ancient daily food of souls, have no right to that care or providence of the Apostle, any farther than every kind of sinner hath right to every thing in every fellow Christians power which may prevent or cure his malady, i. e. by the general large rule of charity, and not the closer particular law of scandal. Nay fourthly, that the case may be such, and the adversaries of Christian liberty, the opposers of the use of lawful ceremonies so contrary to weak blameless mistakers, that it may be duty not to allow them the least temporary compliance, but then to express most zeal in retaining our lawful indifferent observances, to vindicate our liberty from enslavers when the truth of Christ would be disclaimed by a cowardly condiscending, the adversaries of our faith confirmed and heightened, and the true weakling seduced, (a copy of which we read in St Peter's {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Gal. 2. 12. and Barnabat and the Jewish converts being carried away with it. v. 13. falling by his example into the same fault of dissimulation pusillanimity, non-profession of the truth) which is a most proper kind of scandal, as frequent and incident, as any, and so being as dangerous, as fit also to be prevented. To which I might add a fifth proposition also, That the Apostles speech of scandal Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. hath been thought by holy men among the ancients to have much of civility in it, at the most to be but an act of apostolical care for those weak ones, (proportionable to those which in other places he prescribes for every other kind of sinner) both which are far enough from being able to infer any claim or challenge of those weak for themselves, any farther than what the first part of it amounts to, that of instruction; or at least the second, that of not being vilified, as the sick hath right to the physician, to cure him and not to reproach him, civilly to get him out of his malady, i. e. to rectify not to scoff at his mistake. For that he should challenge any right to the third part of that care, that he should restrain me from the use of my lawful liberty, because else he will sin against his own conscience, do after me what he resolves unlawful to do, supposes a wilful sin of his to be to him a foundation of dominion over me, & so that every man that will thus damn himself, doth for that merit and acquire command over me, which if it be supposed, is sure as wild an extravagant irregular way to power, as that of its being founded in gratia, or any that these worst days experience hath taught us.  
§ 30 Having thus far expatiated on this last kind of scandal, and taken in that which is proper to it, and also that which is more distant from it, I shall now resolve it necessary to add yet one thing more, instrumental to the understanding of this kind of scandal in the stricter notion of it, by way of farther caution and restraint, and 'tis this, that  
§ 31 This being offended, stumbling and falling in this third and last sense, is not to be extended to all kinds of sins, which a man may commit upon occasion of another man's indifferent action; but only to that one kind, that consists in doing that after him, either doubting or against Conscience, which he did with an instructed Conscience; or at most to this other kind also, of doing some unlawful thing which another's lawful action was yet by mistake conceived to give authority to; and which that man probably would not have done, had not that mistaken example thus emboldened him. For if all sins that by any accident might be occasioned by my indifferent action, should come under the nature of being offended or scandalised, consequently I must be interdicted all indifferent actions at all times, because at all times each of them may occasion (by some accident) some sin in another: and 'twill be impossible for me to foresee or comprehend all such accidents that may occasion such sins. An action of mine may by accident produce a contrary effect; my fasting from flesh may move another (that dislikes me) by way of opposition to me, to eat flesh, though in Conscience he be persuaded he ought not; as in philosophy there is a thing called Antiperistasis (by which excessive cold produces heat) and equivocal generations, as when living creatures are begotten of dust and slime: and for such accidental, perhaps contrary productions, no law makes provision, no care is effectual: only for those effects, that per se, of their own accord are likely to follow (as transcribing a Copy is a proper consequent only to the writing of it) these the law of the Apostle belongs to, and to them our care and spiritual prudence must be joined, so that we do nothing, though to us never so lawful, which we have reason to fear, that another who thinks it unlawful, may yet, without satisfying his Conscience, be likely to do after us, or on occasion of which he may probably do something else, which otherwise he would not venture to do.  
§ 32 Having thus far dealt in the retail & gone over all the kinds of scandal single, we may now ascend to the consideration of all in gross, and then also these Corollaries will be found true, that from all the kinds of scandal it is clear. 1. That no man is offended or scandalised, but he that falls into some sin, and therefore to say I am scandalised, in the Scripture sense is to confess I have done that which I ought not to have done: and then my only remedy must be repentance and amendment.  
§ 33 2 That to be angry grieved, troubled at any action of another, is not [to be offended] in the Scripture sense, nor consequently doth it follow, that I have done amiss in doing that which another man is angry at, unless my action be in itself evil. For if it be not, than he is angry without cause, and that is his fault, not mine; yea and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he judges or censures his brother that hath done no hurt, which the weak is forbid to do. Rom. 14 3. And secondly, he is of all men most unlikely to do that after me, which he is angry at me for doing, and therefore I have least reason to fear, or possibility to foresee, that he will be scandalised in the Scripture phrase: which fear or foresight were the only just motive to me to abstain from any justifiable indifferent action.  
§ 34 The occasion of the mistake (or in the Philosophers style the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) the reason that men think it a fault to do any indifferent thing that another is angry or displeased at, is first the equivocalness of the English phrase to be offended, for that in English signifies to be displeased: but in Greek (the language wherein the New Testament is written) it signifies no such matter, unless by accident, when being displeased with Christ, makes a man deny him and forsake him: but then also 'tis not the being displeased, but the forsaking or denying him that is meant by being offended, that is scandalised.  
§ 35 Or 2. the use of a word that sounds like this in that notable chapter concerning scandal Ro. 14. for there indeed v. 15. this phrase is used, [if with thy meat i. e. with thy eating, thy brother is grieved, or made sorry.] Where yet 1. I hope 'twill be much more just that that one single word should receive its importance from the whole context, than the whole context from that one word. The whole context from the 13. to the last v. belongs to the 3 sort of scandal, when a weak brother seeing me eat what is lawful for me, because my Conscience is instructed, follows me, & eats too, though it be with a doubting or resisting Conscience▪ and so falls into sin; as appeareth v. 14. to him that thinketh a thing unclean or unlawful, to him it is so, and therefore if he shall do it, he sins by so doing, & v. 23. he that doubteth is damned if he eat, and therefore in all probability that must be the meaning of the 10 verse also. [Is grieved] i. e. wounded, or falls into sin.] explained by 3 words v. 21. stumbling, being offended, and being weak or sick. And so it may easily be resolved to signify. For secondly {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, grief, may be taken for the cause of grief, a disease, or wound, or fall &c. as fear in Scripture signifies danger, which is the cause of fear, according to a vulgar Hebraism ordinary in the new Testament, where for want of the conjugation hiphil, which in Hebrew signifies [to make to do any thing] the Greek is fain to use the active to do. An observation which Hugo Grotius makes use of to explain that Phrase (I shall not inquire how truly) Mat. 19 9 and resolves that there {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} [committeth adultery] must signify [maketh her from whom he divorceth to commit adultery] parallel to what we read, Mat. 5. 23. So also {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to bewail 2 Cor. 12▪ 21. signifies to punish, to use sharpness, which will cause grief, or wailing in them that suffer it. The word is very near this other of which now we speak, and therefore Hesychius (the best glossary for the new Testament) renders {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} both by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} calamity, & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} grief, i. e. grief and the cause of grief; which is also very observable in the use of this very word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Septuagint; the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies infirm or weak, or sick, being rendered {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Lam. 1. 22. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, where we render my heart is faint, and so Is. 1. 15. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the whole heart is faint, by faintness meaning sickness, which is the cause of grief; and therefore the same Hebrew word, is in other places rendered {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, affliction or pain, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Disease Deut. 7. 15. agreeable to the 21 verse of that Ro 14. where stumbling or being offended is explained by being made weak, which phrase is not to be taken in the sense that weakness is used in, v. 1, a. that of infirmity or error (for such he is, before stumbling) but in this other, as weakness and disease, i. e. sin, are all one. So also another Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies perdition, and destruction, and is frequently rendered by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is once interpreted {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Pr. 31. 6. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, for which our English read, ready to perish▪ very agreeable to which doth St Paul here interpret grieving the brother by destroying him, i. e. bringing him into some snare or sin; the notion of Scandal, which all this while we speak of. From all which observations, and analogies it will be no rashness to conclude, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, being grieved, in that place, is perfectly synonymous with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (which we there render is made weak, and indivers places of the new Testament signifies {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} disease, or sickness, and is so rendered by us Jam. 5. 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is any man sick) and with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 1 Cor. 8. 11. in the same matter, thy brother is weak, and dieth, or perisheth through weakness, and with the like phrase in this chapter also, in the end of v. 15. All which clearly denotate the disease or perishing of the soul, i. e. sin, which will destroy, if repentance and mercy intervene not.  
§ 36 The 3 (which is indeed the main) occasion of the mistake, is an ordinary but an unjustifiable humour of men, to accuse & condemn all whom they do not like, i. e. a desire to lay some crime to the charge of them, with whom they are angry, if it be but se defendendo, that they may not be said to be angry without a cause, and when they cannot find any such real crime, than they fly to the case of scandal, and mistaking that for offending, or displeasing, or occasioning anger and dislike, their being angry with them, must make them with whom they are angry, criminous; which what a circle it is, first to be angry without a cause, and then to make that a cause of anger, (i. e. a sin in the other) because I am angry, I conceive will not be hard for any to understand.  
§ 37 I will only add, that if another man's displeasure or anger at my indifferent action, should make that my indifferent action a sin against him, than any man's sin of uncharitableness against me must make me to be uncharitable, for so I should be, if I sinned against him in scandalising him▪ but if I were not so before, his sin (being utterly accidental and extrinsical to me) shall not, I hope, make me to be so now.  
§ 38 To all which I shall here insert this appendage, that even for proper-scripture scandals, the criminousness of them is not to be measured by the event, but by the natural scandalousness, or aptness to give Scandals inherent in them; for I conceive God passes judgement upon sinners by intuition, not by prevision, by seeing what the sin is in itself, and in the aggravating circumstances that are inseparable from it (as that it is apt to give scandals &c.) not by the casual consequents that may possibly either follow or not follow. And I conceive, that that opinion of the Papists (on which they lay part of the foundation of their Purgatory) that men may after their death's sin, and have more acts of sin lying on them, (by reason of other men sinning by the scandal which they gave in their lives) than they had at their Death, and so require in just recompense, some punishments increasable above what they could be adjudged to at their death, is but a fancy or school notion, that hath some show of truth, but little substance, seeing God punisheth every man by the verdict of his own Conscience; and therefore that other sin, which my sin is apt to produce in another, will be by way of aggravation, laid to my charge by God, that sees my heart, and the inherent scandalousness of that action of mine, (though that other man by the grace of God do resist the Temptation which my scandal gave him) as much as if he had not resisted it, & so as his not sinning shall not excuse & lessen my fault which was apt to have brought him to sin; so in like manner, if he do not resist the temptation, or if by occasion of it, he fall by accident (i. e. by the motion of some other part of his temper) into some other sin, to wit that of causeless anger (which no action of another can be said apt to produce; for if it might, the anger would cease to be causeless) this accidental fall of his shall not add to the sinfulness of my act, any more than his former not sinning did detract from it, nor consequently make it sinful, if of itself it were not so.  
§ 39 You will best judge of this truth by an example. That Heliodor a Bishop committed a fault, first in writing, then in setting forth an amorous light fiction or Romance, and then improving that fault by choosing rather to lose his bishopric then to subscribe the condemnation of his work, is and may be reasonably acknowledged; That some men also by reading that Author have since been transported to the commission of some sins, may not improbably be imagined; but having granted all this (and withal that the aptness to give such scandal, was matter of aggravation to his sin) let me now suppose, that immediately after his death that book had been burnt (as before his death it was condemned) when he was no longer able to preserve it, would the counsels condemning and committing that execution upon that work, any whit have mitigated his sentence in Heaven? to affirm that, were to suppose Purgatory, or somewhat like it, or else that God by his foresight of that act of the council should have allowed him that mitigation at the day of his particular judgement, i. e. imputed the casual future actions of others to the present acquitting of him; and then, besides the many inconveniences that might attend such concessions it must also follow, that every reprinting of that book since that time, hath been a damnable sin (not only of giving Scandal to such as have been since infected by it, but especially) of uncharitableness to that poor dead Bishop, in increasing his Torments, or making them capable of increase ever since, by giving him a capacity of corrupting more readers; which humanity and charity, and our great obligations to the nature of which we partake, would not permit any good Christian to do willingly; and besides though our prayers may not be allowed to be able to fetch souls out of Purgatory, yet such a not reprinting of his book might do somewhat like it, prevent the enlargement of his pains, though not make expiation for him. So again when those obscene pictures that historians mention (as I remember in Tiberius his time) after the author's death were burnt, and not permitted liberty to corrupt the eyes of posterity, but Aretynes have had that luck to do it, it would by that school reason follow, that Aretyne though in the work and the design but equal sinner, were yet by this mishap of not perishing, become far more criminously guilty, then that other Author; which sure to affirm were a very irrational nicety.  
§ 40, 3. A third corollary, from the view of all the places together will be this, that to give scandal is then most criminous, when it signifies by my example to bring another man to a sin, especially if this scandalous action of mine be of itself a sin, abstracted from the sin adherent of scandal; and than let any indifferent man judge in what degree may those be truly said to scandalize or offend others (or indeed how they can be excused from that crime) who by being angry with me without a cause, and so committing that sin against Christ's law, Mat. 5. 22. do also by so doing not only provoke and tempt me to anger back again, which is a sin in me, if I yield to it, and that more than accidentally caused by them that provoke me, Eph. 5. 4. but give other men, who have a good opinion of their judgement and sanctity, a plain pattern of that sin of uncharitableness to transcribe & copy out, I mean, to sin also by causeless anger.  
§ 41 4. That the great sin of scandal in the use of things indifferent, that Saint Paul speaks of, and resolves against, Ro. 14. is the sin of uncharitableness, or pride in despising and not condescending to the weak brother meaning by the weak brother not every one that may fall into any sin (for so everyone living will come under that title) but particularly in him that is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} weak and ignorant and unsettled in the faith; as it is opposed to the strong. i. e. the knowing Christian.  
§ 42 And then let any judge whether this can belong to them who profess themselves leaders of others, and would be unwilling to be counted ignorant, and particularly who in the points wherein they profess themselves to be offended, are so knowingly resolved, that they will never be induced to do that after me which they affirm themselves scandalised at: which you may discern, because they are angry and inveigh against me for doing of it, and do not so much as pretend that they are by my example inclined to do what I do, and so scandalised; but only angry at me, or my Action, and so offended.  
§ 43 Mean while I cannot but confess that any man's wilful sin, though it cannot be called weakness in our vulgar notion; yet in the other notion of weakness, for disease of soul, it may well pass; and deserve to be the object of my charity and compassion, as much or more than weakness is: and therefore the uncharitableness of my brother or his causeless anger against me being such, I conceive myself bound to use any lawful means which I can hope may be able to prevent any such sin in him, or to get or recover him out of it; especially if that sin of his may become probably over and above his uncharitableness, a means to stop or hinder him in his course of reformation, or farther growth in piety; as probably it will be, if I against whom he is thus unjustly wrath, be his lawful Pastor; for then that causeless anger or rage of his against me may, through his farther default, occasion in him some vow or resolution, never to hear me, never to be moved or persuaded by me in any thing, that out of the Pulpit or in private reasoning or exhortation, I shall (never so convincingly) propose unto him.  
§ 44 In this case it may be demanded, whether I ought in charity to  
Abstain from this indifferent action, which I foresee will be the matter, though not the cause of all this sin in him, of uncharitableness and nonproficiency in his Christian course, and whether if I do not so abstain this be not to scandalize my brother? To which I briefly answer, 1. That this anger or uncharitableness of his, is not the being scandalised in the scripture sense, nor consequently in that respect my Action a scandal, though it be the matter of the anger, or that which he is angry with.  
§ 45 Secondly, 'Tis true indeed that his resolving against my preaching is in him to be scandalised, i. e. to fall and be stopped in the service of God: but this only in a general sense; as every other such hard-hearted obdurate resisting of God's grace is, or may be called also: and that which occasions this being scandalised, is not my indifferent action, but his anger or uncharitable conceit of me for it, unless equivocally, or remotely, as my action is the object of that anger, which anger is the Author of that profane resolution.  
§ 46 Yet Thirdly, if I might foresee that my indifferent action would occasion, though unjustly, his anger, and his anger produce the effect before mentioned, I think I should do well to abstain from that indifferent action, in charity to him.  
§ 47 But that with these cautions, 1. Unless my indifferent action be ordinable to some good Christian use, and designed by me to it; for then, 
Maimov. d: I. col. c. 5.  as the Jews resolve that a tree set for fruit though it chance to be worshipped, is not made unlawful by that means, so that indifferent useful action of mine will not be made unlawful by the possibility of that ill consequent: Or secondly unless that action in itself indifferent, by lawful authority be commanded, and so cease to be indifferent to me who am under that authority: Or thirdly, unless my abstaining may as probably prove matter of anger to some other of contrary persuasions. Or fourthly, unless that my abstaining, or receding, or undoing what before I had done, be more likely to confirm him in his error (which otherwise in time being not yielded to, he may forsake) then to prevent or allay his causeless anger and those effects of it. Or fifthly, unless I use some means in prudence not only sufficient, but probable to prevent this sin of unjust anger in him before, or to reform it afterward.  
§ 48 But if my abstaining be like to fall into all or any of these inconveniences, then sure I ought not thus to abstain; because when these consequences do attend my abstaining, they are nearer and more immediate to my abstaining, than his resolving against my preaching, is to my doing of it.  
§ 49 And another consideration also may be taken, that he that will so causelessly be angry and resolve against the ordinary means of his salvation, will by the suggestion of the devil or temptation of his own corrupt humour, be likely to find out some other matter of quarrel against me & my preaching, i. e. against his own salvation, though I by abstaining from that particular action, deprive him of that.  
§ 50 And lastly, though I shall not define, yet I would have it considered, whether he that is so disposed in soul and affection, that so gives up the reins of his passions, as upon every or no occasion to break out into causeless anger, uncharitableness, and the effects of it forementioned, be at all the more innocent or less culpable in the sight of God by the not committing of some one act of that sin, only through wanting that or any other one occasion of committing that act. For as in good things God accepts the will for the deed (if it be a firm & ratified will, a full actual intention, & want nothing but opportunity to show itself) & again accepts him that hath expressed that will by ten only acts, being by want of opportunity deprived of a possibility of adding one act more to the number, as well as him, which having the opportunity that the other wanted, hath exceeded him in the number of outward acts. So there may be some reason to fear, that an unresisted unrestrained propension or consent to evil, that wants nothing, but an occasion to actuate it, will be as criminous in the sight of God, as if (without any improvement or change, but only by meeting with that occasion) it break forth into act: or that an habitual inclination to sin in one man ten times actuated in the members, having no more occasions to actuate it, shall be as sadly punished, as the same degree of inclination and intention through presence of occasion once more actuated.  
§ 51 The same Consideration will be proper to other particulars incident to the matter of scandal. As when any thirsty drunkard actually importunate in the pursuit of his espoused sin, shall by occasion of my feast fall into an open act of that sin, (and a hundred the like.) The question than may be, whether supposing him bent to excess, and not only habitually guilty of it, but actually Intent upon it, & only kept off by want of occasion, he would have had less guilt upon his soul, if I had not then invited him. I conceive it hard to maintain the affirmative, for though with men, who see not the heart, no sin is punishable but that in the members (Unless in case of Treason) yet with God the sin of the heart and the hand seems to be equally great, the act of the mind & the act of the body; And the minutely preparations of that to sin as punishable, as the minutely execution of this. As in the schoolmen's resemblance the pressing of the stone to the ground is as great when it is withheld by my hand, as when it is actually moving toward the centre.  
§ 52 I confess there is somewhat to be said, and perhaps with probability, on the other side. And I think Saint Augustine somewhere expresseth his opinion, that though in good things God mercifully accepts the will for the deed, yet out of the same mercy and indulgence he punisheth not so in evil things; Yet because Saint Augustine may perhaps mean the incomplete and not perfect act of the will, (which though we yield to be less than the outward act, yet the complete act of the will, wanting nothing but opportunity of execution, may still be as great,) Or however, because there are not such demonstrable grounds of resolution, as to yield clear conviction to all in this matter, and to assure the Christian, that such an addition of any outward act of sin shall make the punishment the heavier to the habitual sinner, and so the absence of that outward act alleviate it; therefore, although I said I think he should do well to abstain, I dare not yet affirm that he is bound in charity to do so; Nothing but charity binding him to it, and the man that still hath that propension unresisted, being (upon this supposition, which we have made not improbable) like to reap little profit from that charity.  As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 1 Pet. 2. 16. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement. Mat. 5. 22. 
FINIS.