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.

CHAP. XII. Concerning what ought to be done by private persons, when Church-officers spare such as are scandalous.

WE come now to the last Question proposed, to wit, supposing that Church-officers should be defective in trying and censuring scandalous persons, what is the duty of private Chri∣stians in such a case, and if notwithstanding, they ought to continue in the communion of such a Church, or to separate from her?

This Question hath troubled the Church, and been the occasion of many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in many ages, the devil thereby under pretext of indignation at offences, hath made them to abound in the Church, as the Church∣histories and Writings of the Fathers, in what con∣cerneth the Novatians, Donatists, and such like, do fully evince; And although we have great ground to acknowledge Gods mercy, in the sobriety of His people amongst us, so that we have unity, with pu∣rity; yet, seing in order this doth follow, we shall answer shortly, in laying down these grounds.

1. It cannot be denied, but such a case may be, and

often de facto is, that Church-officers are defective in the exercising of Discipline upon scandalous per∣sons, what from negligence, what from unfaithful∣nesse, what from fainting, or some other finfull in∣firmity at the best, as may be gathered from the second and third Chapters of the Revelation.

2. Though this be true, yet possibly it is not al∣wayes their fault when it is charged on them: as sup∣pose, 1. That no private person, or, possibly even the complainer, hath admonished such persons as are counted scandalous, nor have given-in sufficient proofs of their scandal to any Church-judicatory; or, it may be, many are counted scandalous who can∣not legally and judicially be found to be such; for it is more easie to assert a scandal, than to prove, even often when it is true: and it being rather a ground of irritation than edification, when a processe is entred, and not convincingly made-out, Therefore often in duty some proces•…•…es are abstained. Sometimes also Church-officers may be faithfully dealing with per∣sons to recover them from scandals, and yet not find it fit for edification to proceed to high Censures; In such cases, Church-officers cannot reasonably be blamed, and those who complain would pose their own consciences, if they have exonered themselves and done their duty, and have put it to the Officers doors, before they account it their fault: And it is most unbecoming for persons to charge others and to be defective in their own duty, which necessarily in∣ferreth the other. And if it were as difficult and weighty a task to calumniate and groundlesly to charge Church-officers with this, as it is, faithfully to follow private admonition, there would not be so much of the one, and so little of the other. And if it be rightly looked to, it will not be easie to charge them with grosse defects (and if they be not grosse, the matter is not so to be stumbled at, they being in the exercise of Discipline as in other things) for, that

must be upon one of these accounts, either, 1. Be∣cause such scandalou•…•… persons, after refusing of private admonitions, were complained of to them, and that evidence of the fact was off•…•…red, and Church-officers refused to put the same to trial: Or, it must be be∣cause when they did try, they did determine such a thing to be no scandal or not to be p•…•…oven, or that (supposing it to be proven) they did not c•…•…nsure it; or, at least, when scandals were open and obvious, and palpable, they did not take notice of them. Now, is it probable that such a Church-judicatory will frequently be found that will fail grosly either of these wayes? And if they do, then there is acces•…•…e to convince them, by an appeal to a superiour Court, which in that case is a duty. If it be said that their failing and neglect▪ is▪ in some covered manner, so carried-on as there is no accesse to such legal com∣plaints. Answ. 1. We suppose if the things be that grosse, and the fact so clear and frequent, as that there be just ground to complain then there will be also accesse to such a proof. 2. If it be so carried and not owned, then it may be their sin before God; but it is not to be accounted a proper Church-offence in the sense before-m•…•…ntioned, seing they could not be convinced judicially even before the most impartial Judge. And as in such a case we cannot account a private brother ecclesiastically scandalous, although the general strain of his way may be dissatisfying to us, So ought we not to account this; for, there is a great difference, betwixt that which may be offensive to a persons private discretion, and put him possibly in a christian way to desire satisfaction, and that which is to be noised as a publick Church-scan∣dall.

Asser. 3. Upon supposition that the defect be true, yet private professors are to continue in the discharge of the duties of their stations, and not to separate from the Communion of the Church, but to count

themselves exonered in holding fast their own inte∣grity. It's true, it cannot but be heavie to those that are tender, and, if it become scandalously ex∣cessive, may give occasion to them to depart and go where that Ordinance of Discipline is more vigo∣rous; and concerning that, there is no question, it be∣ing done in due manner; Yet, I say, that that can be no ground for withdrawing from the Ordinances of Christ, as if they or their consciences were polluted by the presence of such others. For, 1. That there were such defects in the Church of the Jews, cannot be denied, and particularly doth appear in the in∣stance of Elie's sons, who made the Ordinances of the Lord contemptible with their miscarriages; yet that either it was allowable to the people to withdraw, or faulty to joyn in the Ordinances, can no way be made out. If it be said, there was but one Church then, Therefore none could separate from the Ordinances in it? Answ. 1. This doth confirm what is said, to wit, that the joyning of scandalous persons in Or∣dinances doth not pollut them to others; for if so, the Lord had not laid such a necessity upon those that were tender, that they behoved to partake of pol∣luted Ordinances, or to have none; and if it did not pollute them then, some reason would be given that doth evidence it now to do so. 2. If there be an unity of the Church now, as well as then, then the con•…•…equence must be good; because, so where ever folks communicate, those many that communicate any where, are one bread, and one body, as the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 10. 17. compared with chap 12, 13. And so by communicating any where, we declare our selves to be of the same visible Church and poli∣tick body, with those who communicat elswhere, even as by Baptism we are baptized into one Church, and into communion with all the members of the body any where. And therefore, if this be considered, it will not be enough to eschew pollution (if the ob∣jectio•…•…

be true and well grounded) to separate from one Society, or one particular Congregation, except there be a separation from the whole visible Church; for so also Jews might have separated from particu∣lar Synagogues▪ or have choosed times for their of∣ferings and sacrifices distinct from others. Famous Cotton of New England, in his Holinesse of Church∣members, pag. 21. grants that there were many scanda∣lous persons in the Church of the Jews. 2. He saith, that that was by the Priests defect, for they ought not to have been retained. And, 3. though he say that that will not warrand the lawfulnesse of admit∣ting scandalous persons to the Church, yet he assert∣eth, that it may argue the continuance of their Church-estate notwithstanding of such a toleration; and if so, then it approveth continuing therein, and condemneth separation therefrom; and consequently a Church may be a Church, having the Ordinances in purity, and to be communicate in, notwithstand∣ing of the form•…•…r fault. 3. What hath been marked out of Learned Writers, for paralleling the constitu∣tion of the Church under the Gospel, with that under the Law in essentiall things, doth overthrow this ob∣jection; for now separation is as impossible as formerly.

2. This defect is to be observed in severall of the Primitive Churches, as we may particularly see in the second and third Chapters of the Revelation, yet it is never found that any upon that account did with∣draw or were reproved for not doing so, even when the Officers were reproved for defect: Yea, on the contrary, these who keeped themselves pure from these Scandals, though continuing in that communion, are commended and approven, and exhorted to continue as formerly. Now, if coutinuing in communion in such a case be of it self sinfull, and personall inte∣grity be not sufficient to professours where the defect is sinfull to the Officers, even though in other perso∣nall

things and duties of their stations they were ap∣proveable, How can it be thought that the faithfull and true Witnesse should so sharply reprove the one, and so fully approve the other at the same time?

3. The nature of Church-communion doth con∣firm this: because such influence hath the scandalous∣nesse of one to make another guilty, as the approven conversation of the other hath to make the Ordi∣nances profitable to him that is scandalous, for we can no otherwise partake of the evil than of the good of another in Church-communion; But it is clear, that the graciousnesse of one cannot sanctifie an Ordi∣nance to one that is profane; and therefore the pro∣fanity of one cannot pollute the Ordinance to one that is tender. And, as he that examineth himself, partaketh worthily in respect of himself and his own condition, but doth not sanctifie communicating to another; So, he that partaketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, and not to ano∣ther: and for that cause, is both the precept and the threatning bounded, Let a man examine himself, &c. For, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; for, upon doing or omit∣ting of duty in himself, doth follow worthy, or un∣worthy communicating to him. And if in the most near conjugall fellowship, the company of a profane Husband may be sanctified to a gracious Wife, even when hers is unsanctified to him, (because that de∣pendeth upon the persons own qualification and way of usemaking of Gods Ordinance of marriage) much more may it be here: this last might be a distinct ar∣gument of it self.

4. If continuance in communion with such per∣sons be sinfull, Then it must either be because commu∣nion 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,

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 Ordi∣nances 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, suppo∣sing 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 errone∣ous conscience (which may be alleged in other cases) but from the difference of persons light, charity, or other apprehensions of things, whereby one is in∣duced to esteem that scandalous, which another doth not.

5. If communion with profane persons that are such to our knowledge be sinfull, and polluteth Or∣dinances, Then these things may be enquired, which will inf•…•…r diverse absurdities, 1. Ought persons to try all those that they keep communion with, whe∣ther they be profane or 〈◊〉〈◊〉? For, if any profane per∣son be in that communion which they might have known if they had tried, then their ignorance can∣not excuse. 2. It may be enquired, what degree of triall and search doth sufficiently exoner, because pos∣sibly a further triall might have discovered some to be profane? 3. It may be enquired, what evidences may demonstrate persons to be scandalous, and make them to be so accounted of? If only something seen

by themselves, or if something reported by others; and that whether it be judicially made out or only asserted? and how manies report is to be taken for proof; or if any that be so reported of, be so to be accounted? 4. What sort of sca•…•…dals are to be en∣quired-in to make a person such as polluteth the Or∣dinances? If it be any kind of scandal, or but scan∣dals of such a nature? If one scandal be sufficient, or if the•…•…e must be many? and how many are to be laid weight upon in this? and some satisfying grounds how, and where to fix the difference, are to be laid down? 5. It may be asked, if one scanda∣lous person alone doth pollute the Ordinances? or if there must be moe? and if so, How many? 6. Sup∣pose such a scandal were known to us alone, charity, and Christs command do say, it is not to be publish∣ed; conscience saith in that case, the Ordinance is polluted, time straits either to communicate doubt∣ingly, or with offence to abstain and hide the cause, or contrary to charity to signifie the same. These and many such like things are requisit to satisfie one, upon this supposition, that communion in such a case is sinfull, Therefore it is not to be admitted.

6. If the Ordinance be polluted to one that is clean Then it is either the deed of the Church-officers that doth pollute it, or the deed of the scandalous per∣son that doth communicate; But neither of these can be said: Not the first, for that would suppose that all the Ordinances were polluted, although no scan∣dalous person were present actually, because they were not actually excluded, and though they were absent, yet there being no impediment made to them by Church-officers, as to their guilt, it is the same. Nor the second, Because, supposing a person not to be debarred, it is his duty to communicate; and can it be said, that he in doing of his duty upon the matter, should make that not to be a duty to us, which lieth on by a joynt command, which requireth eating

from him and from us, as it requireth praying?

7. The Lords ordering it so in His providence, that He admitteth unsanctified Officers to administrate His Ordinances, and yet withall, accounting them Officers, and the Ordinances in their hands to be His Ordinances, and that even when they are known to be unsound (till in His own way they be removed) doth demonstrate this, that pollution in joynt wor∣shippers doth not pollute the Ordinances to others. For, if any did pollute them, Then most of all scan∣dalous Officers; But these do not. Ergo, &c. We may see it, first, in the scandalousnesse of Priests under the Law; for we must either say that there were no scan∣dalous Priests, or that the people did then offer no sa∣crifice and joyn in no worship, or that sinfully they did it: All which are absurd. 2. We see in Christs time, the Scribes and Pharisees were pointed out by Him as scandalous, Mat. 23. v. 3. Yet even there doth He require continuance in the Ordinances admini∣strate by them, notwithstanding. 3. Doth not Paul speak of some that preached out of envy, Philip. 1. 15. which is a most grosse scandal, and of others who sought their own things, and not the things of Christ, Phil. 2. 21? Both which are grosse, and clear∣ly evidenced by his testimony, yet is he content that people continue, yea, he supposeth that they may profit in communion with them, which he would not, had the Ordinances been polluted by them to others. And the same may be said of several Chur∣ches in these second and third Chapters of the Revela∣tion, where both grossnesse of Ministers, and of many Professors, is notified by Christ to the Church, yet it cannot be supposed that that might have been made the ground of separation afterward from them, more than not doing of it was reprovable before.

8. If known evil in any that doth communicate, pollute the Ordinances in themselves, Then how can a Believer communicate with himself? Because,

1. he hath corruption. 2. He hath as full knowledge of it as of any other mans, yea, that which may make him think it more than what he knoweth of any other man. 3. That corruption is as near him as the corruption of any. 4. The Law doth more particularly strike against corruption in him as to himself, than that which is in any other. Yea, 5. this corruption doth certainly, in so far pollute the Ordinance to him, and make him guilty. Now the same grounds that say he may communicate with a good conscience, notwithstanding of his own cor∣ruptions, will also say, he may communicate not∣withstanding of that which is in another, much more: because the sins that follow his corruption are his own sins, which cannot be said of the sins of others. And if repentance for his own sin, resting upon Christ, protesting against the body of death (which yet are but the acts of the same person, in so far as re∣nued, differing from himself as unrenued) If, I say, such acts may quiet his conscience, and give him confidence to partake, notwithstanding of his own corruption, and that even then when he as unrenued may be accounted guilty, may they not much more give him confidence in reference to the sins of another, which are not so much as his deeds.

9. In that directory which Christ giveth, Mat. 18. this is implied, because he doth warrand an offended brother to bring obstinate offenders to the Church, as the last step of their duty, and as their •…•…ull exonera∣tion, Tell the Church, saith he; and no more is requir∣ed by him after that, but conforming of his carriage to the Churches Sentence in case of obstinacie. And none can think, upon supposition that the Church did not their duty, that then they were from that forth, not to joyn in that Church, but to separate from them as from heathens and publicans: because so a particular person might Excommunicate a Church, whom yet Christ will not have to withdraw from

communion with a private member, till obstinacie and the Churches censuring interveen; Yea, by so doing, a private person might account another a hea∣then and publican without any publick Censure, which is contrary to Christs scope, which subjoyneth this withdrawing of communion from him to the Churches Censure. This will bind the more if we consider that Christs words have an allusion (as is commonly acknowledged) to the Jewish Sanedrim, which being but one, could not admit of any separa∣tion from its communion, though there had been de∣fect in this: What may be done in abstaining of per∣sonall communion in unnecessary things, is e•…•…er to be acknowledged; yet if separation in such a supposed case, were called-for as a duty, that direction would not be a sufficient direction for an offended brother, because it leaveth him without direction in the last step: Yet Christs progresse so particularly from one step to another, saith, that it is otherwayes in∣tended.

Who would have more full satisfaction in this, may look the Learned Treatises that are written against Separation, which will hold consequentially in this; and therefore we may here say the lesse, And shall only add the consideration of one Scripture.

For confirming of this Assertion then, we may take more particular consideration of one place, which seemeth more especially to relate to this purpose, That is, 1 Corinth. 11. from the 17. ver. foreward: Where it doth appear, first, That there were divisions amongst that people, even in respect of communicat∣ing together at the Lords Table, so that some of them would not communicate with others: for that there were divisions is clear. Now, these divisions are ex∣pressed to be in the Church when they came together to eat the Lords Supper, ver. 18, and 19. and some did communicate at one time, and some at another, without tarrying one for another, as is expressed, v. 33.

Secondly, We may also gather what might be the reason of this divided communicating, or, at least, what some might alleage why they would not com∣municate joyntly with others: For, it is like, they fell in this irregularity deliberately, as thinking they did well when they communicated apart, and not with others. So much is insinuated in the Apostles expostulation, ver. 22. What, shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. Now these reasons might be alleged, to justifi•…•… their divided communicating, 1. That the Ordinances were not reverently administred, nor with that gravity and discerning of the Lords Body, as was fit. 2. That many unworthy persons were ad∣mitted to communion, even such as were drunken, ver. 21. &c. and therefore it might be alleged by them, that joynt communicating with such was to be abstained.

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 Ordi∣nances, 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 du∣ty but a sin: But the former are true. Therefore▪ &c. I know nothing can be objected against this argu∣ment, 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 com∣mends 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 remov∣ing of these, we say to the first, That the main scope of the place is to regulate them in going about the

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 expresly 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 inter∣preted to belong to common eating in the Church, or in the publick meetings thereof, but such as is sacra∣mentall only.

To the second, to wit, if the Apostle doth dip in this question, with respect to that objection of the im∣purity of joynt communicants, we do propose these things for clearing of the same,

First, We say, that whether they did actually ob∣ject that or not, yet there was ground for them to object the same if it had weight, as the Text cleareth: Neither could the Apostle, knowing that ground, and having immediately mentioned the same, have ac∣cesse to presse them all indifferently to communicate together, if his direction meet not the case; for this might still have stood in the way, that many of them were such and such, and therefore not to be commu∣nicated with; and if it be a sufficient reason to keep them from joynt communicating, then the case being so circumstantiated, it would also be a sufficient rea∣son to keep him from imposing that as a duty upon them, at least, so long as the case stood as it was.

Secondly, We say, that it is not unlike there was such hesitations in some of them; and that (what∣ever was among them) it is clear, that the Apostle doth expresly •…•…peak to this case, and endeavour to re∣move that objection out of the way, to wit, that men should not scare at the Sacrament, because of the pro∣fanity of others: and that therefore they might with∣out

scruple as to that, communicate joyntly, and •…•…arry one for another, which is his scope, ver. 33. This will appear by considering severall reasons whereby he presseth this scope, for that, ver. 33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together, tarrie one for another, is the scope laid down as a conclusion from the former grounds which he hath given. Now, when he hath corrected their first fault, to wit, their irreverent manner of going about the Ordinance, by bringing them to Christs institution, ver. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. He cometh, in the last place, to meet with this objection, What if others be present who palpably cannot discern the Lords Body, and so cannot com∣municate worthily? Can it be safe to communicate with such? Or, is it not better to find out some other way of communicating apart, and not together with such? The Apostle giveth severall answers to this, and reasons, whereby he cleareth, that their di∣vision was not warrantable upon that ground, from ver. 28. And so concludeth, ver. 33. that notwith∣standing thereof, they might tarry one for another.

The first reason, is, ver. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat. Which sheweth, 1. That a mans comfortable preparation for this duty, is to ex∣amine himself; and that the fruit may be expected, or not expected, accordingly as it shall be with himself: Otherwayes, it were not a sufficient di∣rection for preparation, to put him to examine him∣self. Again, 2. these are knit together, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat. Which is in sum, this, when a man hath in some sincerity looked upon his own condition, and hath attained some suitable∣nesse to the Ordinances, as to his own private case, then, (saith the Apostle) Let him eat, without re∣specting the condition of others. Otherwayes, a man having examined himself, yet could not eat, though his own disposition were as it should be, if the case of others might hinder him in eating. And

we conceive, it is a main part of the Apostles scope, by knit•…•…ing these two together (to wit, a mans eating with the examining of himself) purposly to prevent such a deba•…•…e.

The second reason which he giveth, will confirm this also; for, saith he, ver. 29. He who eateth and drinketh unworthily, he eateth and drinketh unto himself damnation▪ or judgement. Which is, in •…•…um, this, a man that hath examined himself, may eat of the Sa∣crament, though many persons communicate unwor∣thily with him, because (saith he) he that eateth un∣worthily, doth not bring damnation or judgement upon others, nor is his sin imputed to them that com∣municate with him, but he doth bring it upon himself, and therfore no other hath cause to scare at the Ordi∣nance because of that, if he hath examined himself. This reason he again confirmeth from experience, ver. 30. For this cause (saith he) many are sick, and many among you are weak, &c. that is, not because they did communicate with those who are scandalous being in good case themselves; but for this cause, saith he, many are sick, &c. and have brought upon themselves great plagues, because by not examining of themselves, they did communicate unworthily, and so, by their own sin, brought these stroaks upon themselves.

He gives a third reason for making out of his scope, ver. 3•…•…. For, if we will judge our selves, we should not be judged, that is, men need not be anxious in this case, whether others judge themselves or not; for, saith he, Gods absolving or judging of us, doth not depend upon what they do▪ but upon what we our selves do. And therefore presseth them still to look to themselves, because the judging and humbling of our selves before God, is the way not to be judged by Him, even in reference to that Ordinance, whatever others do.

Now, when he hath fully cleared the reasons, and,

as it were, made out this proposition, that if a man be right in his own frame, the sin of another joynt communicant, cannot be hurtfull to him, or b•…•… ground to mar him in eating, and when by an interserted pa∣renthesis, he hath obviated a doubt, v. 32. he con∣cludeth, ver. 33. Wh•…•…refore, saith he, my brethren, (seing it is so) •…•…arry one for another, and be not anxi∣ously feared to communicate joyntly; Now, seing all alongst the Apostle hath been giving such grounds as may clear a conscience in that case, and doth in these words lay down the direction of tarrying one for another, or of joynt communicating, as a conclu∣sion drawn from the former grounds, It cannot be thought, but that purposly he intended these reasons to be grounds for the quieting of consciences, to obey that direction in such a case; and that therefore it cannot be warrantable to separate upon that ground.

Notes

• A particu∣lar conside∣ration of 1 Cor. 11. 17, &c.