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

If it be said▪ that they are to proceed as in charity they judge the person to be sincere, Then we oppose, procedure in Church-judicatories must be according to such rules as a person that judgeth wrong may be convinced that he judgeth wrong, if a wronged party should complain; But if the man's own thoughts and charity of such a man were the rule, whereby he is to judge, then suppose some Judicatories unwarrantably to admit, or to debar some, there were no way to convince them that they had judged wrong▪ because none could judge their singleness. Again, if it be said, that that may be gathered from evidences, Then we desire to know what evidence is to charity a sufficient ground to make a man to be accounted gracious, and without which he is not to be accounted such? If there be no such evidence, then the decision lieth upon the persons judgement and inclination, which falleth in the former inconvenience: If there be such evidences, ⟨p. 90⟩1. It will be hard to condescend upon them. 2. They are either such evidences as may be judicially demonstrated to be in such a person, or not to be in him: If they may be demonstrated to be in him, then it is not charity that decideth, but a law, which we will acknowledge when it is discovered, if they cannot be judicially demonstrated to be in such a person, or not to be in him; then the redressing of any corrupt decision is still made impossible▪ and there is no more but the conjectures of such mens charity in such a case; Then, how can these absurdities be answered? As▪ 1. What if such Church-officer, should be partial? in that case their charity will either be too narrow, or too broad, and can that be the rule of procedure in Christ's House? and yet Church-officers are men subject to such infirmities. 2. What if the person should think himself wronged by their accounting him not to be gracious, would that be sufficient to convince him, because they thought so? and yet it cannot be said, that according to Christ's order Church-officers should Sentence an offending party, and not be able to convince him; and he cannot demonstrate it to them so as to convince them, and so it is for ever undeterminable, which is most absurd▪ What if he appeal to a supreme Judicatory? how could they defend their Sentence? Or, what if the superior Judicatory judged him to be sincere?