A defence of the principles of love, which are necessary to the unity and…

EXCEPT. XII. Answered. Here we have first a mere magisterial dictate without proof, that I speak [triflingly] about ¹Scandal, and show how little I understand it. But where's his reason or Confutation? 2. Why all is but this [Paul would not eat flesh rather than he would offend his weak brother, &c.] Judge, Reader, whether the bare² citing of these words be any proof, that in Scripture, Scandal is not taken more for tempting, ensnaring, and laying before men an occasion of stumbling, or sinning, than for mere displeasing men, which is the thing that I affirmed.

EXCEPT. XII. Answered. Here we have first a meer magisterial dictate without proof, that I speak [triflingly] about ¹Scandal, and shew how little I understand it. But where's his reason or Confutation? 2. Why all is but this [Paul would not eate flesh rather than he would offend his weak brother, &c.] Judge, Reader, whether the bare² citing of these words be any proof, that in Scripture, Scandal is not taken more for tempting, ensnaring, and laying before men an occasion of stumbling, or sinning, than for meer displeasing men, which is the thing that I affirmed.

1. 1Of Pauls not scandalizing the weak.
2. 2I know that Expositors much differ about the weak brother here described, but not in the point that I now urge the •ext for.

But, sure Brother, if you soberly review it, you will find that you deal very hardly with the Scripture and the souls of men. First the word [[Greek or Hebrew]] which our Translators turn [make to offend] you read [offend] instead of scandalize; And 2. You bring a text against the truth which I assert, which is as plain for it as can well be spoken. The whole Chapter showing, that [the weak brother] that Paul speaketh of, was one that [with Conscience of the Idol, did eat it as a thing offered to an Idol, and their Conscience being weak was defiled, ver. 7. 9, And