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

This difference may be considered two ways, 1. As it pretendeth a dissatisfaction with the persons who are to govern; some, upon the one side, thinking it unfit to join with profane men; some, upon the other, disdaining to join with Schismatics. In this strait were the Fathers of the Council of Carthage in their dealing with the Donatists; some of them asserting, on the one side, That there was no uniting with such as the generality of the Catholics were; and Augustine often citeth the word of P•tmianus, given-in to them as an Answer to the desire of a Conference, Indignum est ut in unum conventant fi•ii Martyrum, & progenies traditorum; that is, It is a most unseemly thing that the sons of Martyrs, and the brood of Traditors should assemble together in one place. On the other hand, they were pressed from Rome and parts adjacent, not to unite with these Schismatics the Donatists, as may be seen in that Council; yet did they find it their duty to seek union with them notwithstanding, and to admit, that such of them as were put before from their Churches, should be repossessed by him that was appointed Cognitor, and deputed by the Emperor in that Conference, Ut eo modo eos ad conferendum etiam beneficiis invitaret; that is, That so he might invite them to conference at least by such benefits. This principle, we suppose, ought not, nor will not stick in the hearts of such men, and in such a case, as is presupposed, and ⟨p. 410⟩it leadeth to a These, That there is no communion in Government to be kept, where, upon any of the former accounts, men are displeased with such persons as are joined therein with them: and though affection, and sometimes inclination, being stirred with prejudice and discontent, will be ready to make some such practices to be plausible, which do infer this; yet, I suppose, the Thesis it self will not be maintained, more than such a ground will warrant Separation in any other Ordinance; and the grounds formerly laid down in several parts of this discourse, will not admit of such a principle, which, if admitted, would exclude union for ever, We shall therefore pass this.

This difference may be considered two wayes, 1. As it pretendeth a dissatisfaction with the persons who are to govern; some, upon the one side, thinking it unfit to joyn with prophane men; some, upon the other, disdaining to joyn with Schismaticks. In this strait were the Fathers of the Council of Carthage in their dealing with the Donatists; some of them asserting, on the one side, That there was no uniting with such as the generality of the Catholicks were; and Augustine often citeth the word of Ptmianus, given-in to them as an Answer to the desire of a Conference, Indignum est ut in unum conventant fiii Martyrum, & progenies traditorum; that is, It is a most unseemly thing that the sons of Martyrs, and the brood of Traditors should assemble together in one place. On the other hand, they were pressed from Rome and parts adjacent, not to unite with these Schismaticks the Donatists, as may be seen in that Council; yet did they find it their duty to seek union with them notwithstanding, and to admit, that such of them as were put before from their Churches, should be repossessed by him that was appointed Cognitor, and deputed by the Emperour in that Conference, Ut eo modo eos ad conferendum etiam beneficiis invitaret; that is, That so he might invite them to conference at least by such benefits. This principle, we suppose, ought not, nor will not stick in the hearts of such men, and in such a case, as is presupposed, and