The Dying Mans Testament to the Church of Scotland, Part 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Shewing what is not necessary to satisfaction.
TO the second thing, to wit, what is not necessary, or to be enquired for, by Church-officers to be an ecclesiastick satisfaction for removing of an offence. We answer, That the saving grace of repentance, or godly sincerity therein in the person, is not to be enquired into, as the alone ground upon which they may rest satisfied. For, 1. That would put a Church-judicatory so far as they could to determine of the state and graciousnesse of every offending person before they were satisfied, which were absurd, that not being the object of Churchdiscipline, and it's nowhere to be found that men are called judicially to determine of the state of another. 2. It would lay this ground, That none should be after any offence recovered and admitted to priviledges, except they were thought really to be gracious; which would infer, that none should be admitted to the Church, but such; yea, that none should be continued in the Church, but such; because readily there are none, but in lesse or more give offence, so far as may be the ground of a private admonition, which doth once table them▪ and if nothing can be satisfying but what giveth ground to account them gracious, it would come to that, that men are to be excommunicated because they are not thought to be gracious, and cannot give evidence of that. 3. So every person that were received after an offence, would have a Sentence of a Church-judicatory standing to prove them to be converted, which certainly would prove offensive, and a stumbling to many who are too apt to ground presumption on a lesser occasion. 4. It would put Church-officers upon the rack, and prove a tortour to them: For, 1. There is no evidence given in the word whereby one may know the gracious estate of one another infallibly; And shall that be only satisfying to us, which by no means we can know? 2. God hath not given men dominion over consciences to search or censure them in their ends, motives, &c. but as appeareth in their outward actions, and there being nothing that can evidence soundnesse in the outward action it self, because Hypocrites may come that length, it cannot be that that must be their task, to decide where there is no possibility to attain to a satisfying decision. If it be said▪ that they are to proceed as in charity they judge the person to be sincere, Then we oppose, procedure in Church-judicatories must be according to such rules as a person that judgeth wrong may be convinced that he judgeth wrong, if a wronged party should complain; But if the man's own thoughts and charity of such a man were the rule, whereby he is to judge, then suppose some Judicatories unwarrantably to admit, or to debar some, there were no way to convince them that they had judged wrong▪ because none could judge their singlenesse. Again, if it be said, that that may be gathered from evidences, Then we desire to know what evidence is to charity a sufficient ground to make a man to be accounted gracious, and without which he is not to be accounted such? If there be no such evidence, then the decision lieth upon the persons judgement and inclination, which falleth in the former inconvenience: If there be such evidences, 1. It will be hard to condescend upon them. 2. They are either such evidences as may be judicially demonstrated to be in such a person, or not to be in him: If they may be demonstrated to be in him, then it is not charity that decideth, but a law, which we will acknowledge when it is discovered, if they cannot be judicially demonstrated to be in such a person, or not to be in him; then the redressing of any corrupt decision is still made impossible▪ and there is no more but the conjectures of such mens charity in such a case; Then, how can these absurdities be answered? As▪ 1. What if such Church-officer, should be partial? in that case their charity will either be too narrow, or too broad, and can that be the rule of procedure in Christ's House? and yet Church-officers are men subject to such infirmities. 2. What if the person should think himself wronged by their accounting him not to be gracious, would that be sufficient to convince him, because they thought so? and yet it cannot be said, that according to Christ's order Church-officers should Sentence an o…ending party, and not be able to convince him; and he cannot demonstrate it to them so as to convince them, and so it is for ever undeterminable, which is most absurd▪ What if he appeal to a supream Judicatory? how could they defend their Sentence? Or, what if the superiour Judicatory judged him to be sincere? how could one of these Judicatories convince the other, if charity only were the rule? And yet it cannot be thought, that by Discipline and Censures, which are appointed by Jesus Christ for entertaining of union, that such inevitable grounds of division should be laid? Again, could it be but irritating to a person judicially to be declared unregenerate, and would it not afterward both make such Sentences, and those that pronounce them to have the lesse weight? 3. Suppose in the same Judicatory some persons charity should be larger nor others, what is to be done in that case? There is no possibility for one of them to convince the other; yea, can it but stir up new offences? for, the one of them is ready to judge the other, either unacquainted with spirituall conditions, or untender; for, the judging upon the sincerity of grace, requireth the exercise of a christian and spiritual discerning; and therefore accordingly as it is exercised differently, so are men ready to account of others to be at best Christians of different siezes: and we suppose that in nothing a man's grace hath more occasion to vent than in his uptaking and judging of the gracious estate of another, because this supposes acquaintance and sympathy with, and experience of sincere grace, more than is either in preaching, prayer, or such exercises. And this certainly would be no little stumbling to Church-officers, to be so frequently put to give triall of their own graciousnesse, whereas if we walk by setled rules, there is no such occasion to stumble. 4. Do not we see that one mans charity doth differ from another, and so diverse men in the same extrinsick action of judging in a Churchcourt, should have diverse rules to judge-by in the same act, possibly leading them to judge contrarily, which were absurd. 5. Doth not oftentimes the same one mans charity differ from what it was at another time, and he will be more and lesse in extending it according to the frame of his own spirit, the dulnesse or confusion of his mind, or possibly accordingly as he hath some relation or obligation to, or prejudice at the person, which may steal-in on his judgment, and (as it is said) blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the understanding of the just, and he really think himself single in judging? And can such afle…ting unconstant rule be that which Christ hath appointed in His Church to order the removing of offences? 6. Do we not know, that often mens charity, in such cases, is swayed much by the judgment of some one or other who is esteemed of? and so this way which pretendeth to give most liberty, doth in seed bind up most: For, men either in that case satisfie themselves, that such a man is sincere, or not, because such another saith so, and so he goeth on implicitly, not doing what he doth in faith; or, he hath his own suspicions that others do not determine rightly of such a person's sincerity, and then he is at this strait, either to contrary his own light, and go on with the other, or to judge otherwayes, and by so doing to give out his own spiritual discerning to be beyond that others▪ and therefore to judge him for mistaking in it. And contradiction in this, is not as in other cases, where only mens moral light and understanding do vary; but here, as we said, it is in a thing that is most purely spituall, and peculiar to the People of God onelyonly, whereof naturall men and hypocrites are not capable.
What the Reverend and most convincing Writer, Mr. Wood, hath in his Examination of Mr. Lockiers Little-stone, to prove that sincerity of true grace is not to be enquired for, as the constitution or complexion (as Mr. Lockier speaketh) of visible members in the visible Church, doth fully make out this also; for, there is the same reason against the enquiring after the sincerity of grace, in respect of the impossibility thereof in this case, as in that; and there needeth nothing further to be adde… for confirming of this, till those his pregnant Arguments be answered.