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

Thirdly, It is evident also, That notwithstanding of these grounds▪ the Apostle doth condemn their practice, and presseth them to joint communicating, as appeareth from ver. 22. and 33. From which, this clear argument doth arise, If the members of the Church of Corinth, who did separate from the Ordinances, because of the sinfulness of these that did jointly partake with them, were condemned by Paul, and required to communicate jointly, and if it be made clear by him how they might do so and not be guilty, Then separation in such a case cannot be a duty but a sin: But the former are true. Therefore▪ &c. I know nothing can be objected against this argument, but either to say, That the Apostles scope is in that eating together, to regulate their love feasts, and to condemn their practice in these; or, that he commends joint communicating simply, but not in such a case, because it is not clear whether any of them did scruple upon that ground or not: for, the removing of these, we say to the first, That the main scope of the place is to regulate them in going about the ⟨p. 138⟩Sacrament of the Lords Supper: And therefore it is that the Apostle doth so clearly and plainly insist in clearing the institution thereof, thereby to bring them back to the way that was laid down and delivered to him by the Lord. And for any other sort of eating or drinking, the Apostle doth send them to their houses▪ v•r. 22. and more expressly he repeateth that direction, that if any man hunger and desire to eat his ordinary meat, Let him do it at home, ver. 34. So that no direction for the time to come can be interpreted to belong to common eating in the Church, or in the public meetings thereof, but such as is sacramental only.

Thirdly, It is evident also, That notwithstanding of these grounds▪ the Apostle doth condemn their practice, and presseth them to joynt communicating, as appeareth from ver. 22. and 33. From which, this clear argument doth arise, If the members of the Church of Corinth, who did separate from the Ordinances, because of the sinfulnesse of these that did joyntly partake with them, were condemned by Paul, and required to communicate joyntly, and if it be made clear by him how they might do so and not be guilty, Then separation in such a case cannot be a duty but a sin: But the former are true. Therefore &c. I know nothing can be objected against this argument, but either to say, That the Apostles scope is in that eating together, to regulate their love feasts, and to condemn their practice in these; or, that he commends joynt communicating simply, but not in such a case, because it is not clear whether any of them did scruple upon that ground or not: for, the removing of these, we say to the first, That the main scope of the place is to regulate them in going about the