The dying man's testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A treatise concerning scandal…

for there may be anger when there is no offence given, as suppose one should fret because they get not their will vented unjustly on some other in their arson or estate. In that case, their satisfaction is not their edification, nor their displeasing their offence; So is it in this case, where a man pursues his own in a due manner, there is no just ground of offence given: because, 1. The thing it self is neither evil, nor hath the appearance of evil, but hath an approbation from God who hath appointed Magistrates for that end to hear and redress wrongs, and cannot but be approven by others; yea, the deed it self cannot but be approven in the conscience of him that is offended, seeing it is taught to men by nature to keep themselves, from injury, and it is not in things so clearly approven by God, and taught by nature, that offence is given, but where the action is doubted in conscience to be unlawful, at least▪ as so circumstantiate, which cannot be in this case. 2. It is no offence to complain to a Church-judicatory of one that offendeth, if it be done in a right manner, though it anger him, because it is a legal allowed way, Therefore neither is it so here. 3. To condemn this, were really to offend many, even those, who from their covetous and malicious humour might clearly be emboldened to wrong others; wherefore we see Paul ⟨p. 34⟩and others do approve legal defences for preventing or remedying of hurt, though, no question, malicious opposers were fretted therewith. Yet where two are Ministers, or eminent in profession, we suppose there ought to be more wariness, because so necessarily it is implied, that the one hath the wrong side, which cannot but offend.

for there may be anger when there is no offence given, as suppose one should fret because they get not their will vented unjustly on some other in their •rson or estate. In that case, their satisfaction is not their edification, nor their displeasing their offence; So is it in this case, where a man pursues his own in a due manner, there is no just ground of offence given: because, 1. The thing it self is neither evil, nor hath the appearance of evil, but hath an approbation from God who hath appointed Magistrates for that end to hear and redresse wrongs, and cannot but be approven by others; yea, the deed it self cannot but be approven in the conscience of him that is offended, seing it is taught to men by nature to keep themselve, from injury, and it is not in things so clearly approven by God, and taught by nature, that offence is given, but where the action is doubted in conscience to be unlawfull, at least as so circumstantiat, which cannot be in this case. 2. It is no offence to complain to a Church-judicatorie of one that offendeth, if it be done in a right manner, though it anger him, because it is a legal allowed way, Therefore neither is it so here. 3. To condemn this, were really to offend many, even those, who from their covetous and malicious humour might clearly be emboldned to wrong others; wherefore we see Paul