A37042:270
The dying man's testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A treatise concerning scandal…
The dying man's testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A treatise concerning scandal divided into four parts ... : in each of which there are not a few choice and useful questions, very shortly and satisfyingly discussed and cleared / by ... Mr. James Durham ... who being dead (by this) yet speaketh ; and published by John Carstares ... ; to which is prefixed an excellent preface of famous Mr. Blair ... ; together with a table of the contents of the several chapters of each part.
Edinburgh: printed by Christopher Higgins, 1659
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
4. If continuance in communion with such persons be sinful, Then it must either be because communion with such as are profane indeed, whether we know or think them to be so or not, is sinful; or, it must be because we know them, or think them to be such; But neither of these can be said: Not the first, ⟨p. 132⟩because so to keep communion with an hypocrite, or a Believer in a carnal frame, were sinful, although we thought them to be sincere, which cannot be pleaded: nor can it be said, it is because we know them to be so, Because, 1. If we knew a man to be so, and another knew not, in that case, the Ordinances were polluted to one, and not to another, at the same time, though possibly both were exercising the same faith, and having examined themselves, were in the same frame, which were absurd. Yea, 2. If it depended on our knowledge of it, Then our very supposing it to be so, although it were not so, would pollute the Ordinance; and what confusion would be there, may be afterward hinted. Nor can it be said, it is because we think so, because, supposing some to think otherwise, it would be still an ordinance to them, and a duty to continue in it, and not to us, which is the former absurdity; and this doth not flow from the binding nature of an erroneous conscience (which may be alleged in other cases) but from the difference of persons light, charity, or other apprehensions of things, whereby one is induced to esteem that scandalous, which another doth not.
4. If continuance in communion with such persons be sinfull, Then it must either be because communion with such as are profane indeed, whether we know or think them to be so or not, is sinfull; or, it must be because we know them, or think them to be such; But neither of these can be said: Not the first, ⟨p. 132⟩because so to keep communion with an hypocrite, or a Believer in a carnall frame, were sinfull, although we thought them to be sincere, which cannot be pleaded: nor can it be said, it is because we know them to be so, Because, 1. If we knew a man to be so, and another knew not, in that case, the Ordinances were pollutted to one, and not to another, at the same time, though possibly both were exercising the same faith, and having examined themselves, were in the same frame, which were absurd. Yea, 2. If it depended on our knowledge of it, Then our very supposing it to be so, although it were not so, would pollute the Ordinance; and what confusion would be there, may be afterward hinted. Nor can it be said, it is because we think so, because, supposing some to think otherwise, it would be still an ordinance to them, and a duty to continue in it, and not to us, which is the former absurdity; and this doth not flow from the binding nature of an erroneous conscience (which may be alleged in other cases) but from the difference of persons light, charity, or other apprehensions of things, whereby one is induced to esteem that scandalous, which another doth not.