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 __ 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._