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

It may be said, that sometimes the case is so stated,¹ that whatever be done there will be offence, as if Paul take wages, he is called a self-seeker, that is, one that maketh gain of preaching the Gospel, if he forbear, it is said he loveth not the Corinthians, and therefore he taketh not from them; again, some weak Jews are ready to stumble, and not receive the Gospel if he circumcise not Timothy; others again, are ready to take ⟨p. 36⟩advantage and to plead the necessity of the ceremonial Law if he circumcise Titus: It may be asked, what is to be done in such cases? In reference to which we answer, 1. That we would ever look▪ what is most expedient as to edification, it is like it did displease Peter and the Jews more that he did not circumcise Titus, and the false Apostles that he did not take wages, than if he had done it, yet he did what was most edifying, and of it self aptest to further their spiritual good; and a spiritual discerner will readily find what is most edifying in it self, or in that case, which is to be followed, although it may be most displeasing. 2. Respect would be had to these that are most unbiased; prejudice possessed the Jews and these corrupt Teachers, and therefore whatever Paul did they stumbled at it; but it is like he had respect to others, and did what might most wipe away the calumnies that were cast upon him and the Gospel by these false Apostles. 3. In such a case, a man would look to what is most denied like, and it is ever safest to sway to that hand, as suppose a man were in hazard upon one side to be thought negligent, if he be not painful, and even someway rigorous in his dealings with men, as on the other side, covetous, if he be but painful. It is safest to hazard upon diligence without rigidity, although it should occasion him to be accounted negligent: Because there is least selfinesse on that side, and that hath least to commend it unto mens corruptions. Thus Paul rather hazardeth upon what might follow upon his refusing to take wages than to take them, because taking is of it self more apt to give offence than refusing, and doth not look so single like, and there is not so easy access to vindicat that against clamorous mouths. 4.

It may be said, that sometimes the case is so stated,¹