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

If it be said, How can there be union in such a case upon the principle supposed, till (as may be said by one side) those who have decided and acted corruptly should repent, and (as may be said by the other) till those who have divided unjustly from the Church, and wronged the authority thereof, should acknowledge their offence, without which there cannot be union? For answer to which we say, 1. What if neither party shall ever be brought to repent or acknowledge an offence? shall the Church in such a case never attain to union? Repentance implieth a conviction, and this implieth information and clearness in the judgment that such a thing is wrong. Now,¹ it being often seen that it is impossible to get men of one judgment concerning such a thing, Must therefore union be impossible till men be of one judgment? This hath been formerly disproved. 2. What if this had been the mind of the Churches and Servants of God from the beginning of the world? there had never been public-ecclesiastic, nor private-christian peace; for they were never all of one judgment: and to assert or write what is supposed to be an error, is proportionably a sin and an offence, as to determine it judicially; and it would infer the necessity of repentance▪ even in such cases, for the attaining of peace and making up of differences; And shall we thus at once condemn the generation of Gods People, who have, without proposing, or, at least, pressing of such a thing, entertained peace and union amongst themselves? 3. This would enervate all the former grounds that plead for union with forbearance, and such like, which, I suppose, will not be warrantably done. 4. This way is indeed either to make union the more impossible, or if union be attained in any measure, ⟨p. 391⟩both the less hearty amongst themselves, and the less profitable unto others, as hath been formerly cleared. 5. We are not to respect in this, mens particular carriage or desert (which possibly would not be thought of great concernment by others, not engaged in that debate) but the Churches good is to be looked to, and what it doth require, as we may gather from what hath been formerly said.

If it be said, How can there be union in such a case upon the principle supposed, till (as may be said by one side) those who have decided and acted corruptly should repent, and (as may be said by the other) till those who have divided unjustly from the Church, and wronged the authority thereof, should acknowledge their offence, without which there cannot be union? For answer to which we say, 1. What if neither party shall ever be brought to repent or acknowledge an offence? shall the Church in such a case never attain to union? Repentance implyeth a conviction, and this implyeth information and clearness in the judgment that such a thing is wrong. Now,