n fide labefactari vel istos in
falsa opinione obfirmari omittendae potius sunt, quia tunc per accidens
fiunt illicitae._ Whereupon I throw back the argument, and prove from this
place, that Paul cared to shun the scandal of the malicious, which should
have followed upon his circumcising of Titus, as well as he cared to shun
the offence of the weak, which should have followed upon his not
circumcising of Timothy; and that Paul cared for the scandal of the
malicious is further confirmed by his not taking wages at Corinth. They
who would have been offended at his taking wages there were malicious, and
did but seek occasion against him, 2 Cor. xi. 12, yet his taking wages
there not being necessary (as appeareth from 2 Cor. xi. 9), he abstained.

Christ's not caring for the scandal of the Pharisees is also objected, to
prove that if the thing be lawful or indifferent, we are not to care for
the offence of the malicious. But Parker answereth well:(364) "The scandal
there not cared for is, when the Pharisees are offended at his abstaining
from their washings and his preaching of true doctrine,--both of which were
necessary duties for him to do. And when he defendeth his healing on
Sabbaths, Luke xiii. 15, and his disciples' plucking ears, Matt. xii. 7,
upon this reason they are duties of necessity and charity, he plainly
insinuateth, there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the malicious
are scandalised. When the thing was indifferent, doth he not forego his
liberty for to please them, as when he paid tribute, lest he should offend
them, although he knew they were malicious?" Matt. xvii. 27.

Thus have I evinced a main point, namely, that when scandal is known to
follow upon anything, if it be not necessary, there is no respect
whatsoever which can justify it.

CHAPTER IX.

ALL THE DEFENCES OF THE CEREMONIES, USED TO JUSTIFY THEM AGAINST THE
SCANDAL IMPUTED TO THEM, ARE CONFUTED.

_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said it followeth inevitably, that
since scandal riseth out of the controverted ceremonies, and since they
are not things necessary, they are to be condemned and removed as most
inconvenient. But that the inconveniency of them, in respect of the
scandal which they cause, may be particularly and plainly evinced, I come
to discuss all the defences which our opposites use against our argument
of scandal. These Formalists, who acknowledge the inconveniency of the
cerem