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

Thus it was in the case of the Novatians, Donatists, Meletians, Cathari and others, of whom it is recorded, that their fault did not consist in setting up any strange Doctrine▪ or in rejecting of the truth (at least at the first) but in breaking the band of communion, as Augustine hath it often; for, saith he, Schismaticos facit non diversa fides sed communionis disrupta societas, contra Faustum, lib. 20. Again, he saith of the Donatists, Ad Bonifac. Epist. 50. Nec de ipsa fide vertitur quaestio, sed de sola communione infaeliciter litigant, & contra unitatem Christi rebell•s inimiciti•s, perversitate sui erroris, exercent. And this sort of schism doth often draw with it the former, there being no way to maintain this without the other. Of this schism there are many kinds, according to its several rises and degrees; and also, according as it extendeth to the breaking of communion in whole, from Ordinances, or in part only from some, or in some Ordinances, as appeareth to have been in the Church of Corinth, where there hath not been a total schism, though it hath been in that Ordinance of the Supper especially; and it is like also, that that schism hath been occasioned, because of the corruption of some members, with whom others have scared to communicate; and therefore have not tarried for them: for, the Apostle doth particularly condemn this, and exhort them to tarry one for another; and to attain this, he doth clear them of what was necessary for right partaking, to wit, the examining of themselves, ver. 28. and doth declare unto them, that who so did eat unworthily, and did not prepare himself, did eat and drink damnation; but to himself, and not to others: wherefore, saith he, ye need not be so anxiously solicitous ⟨p. 275⟩how they be prepared, or of what sort they be that are with you, but examine your selves, and tarry one for another, that there be not a schism amongst you. And this he speaketh, even when he hath been reproving drunkenness among the Communicants, yet will he not admit that as an excuse, why private persons should Communicate separatedly, which was their practice. This was spoken of in the first part.

Thus it was in the case of the Novatians, Donatists, Meletians, Cathari and others, of whom it is recorded, that their fault did not consist in setting up any strange Doctrine▪ or in rejecting of the truth (at least at the first) but in breaking the band of communion, as Augustine hath it often; for, saith he, Schismaticos facit non diversa fides sed communionis disrupta societas, contra Faustum, lib. 20. Again, he saith of the Donatists, Ad Bonifac. Epist. 50. Nec de ipsa fide vertitur quaestio, sed de sola communione infaeliciter litigant, & contra unitatem Christi rebells inimicitis, perversitate sui erroris, exercent. And this sort of schism doth often draw with it the former, there being no way to maintain this without the other. Of this schism there are many kinds, according to its several rises and degrees; and also, according as it extendeth to the breaking of communion in whole, from Ordinances, or in part only from some, or in some Ordinances, as appeareth to have been in the Church of Corinth, where there hath not been a totall schism, though it hath been in that Ordinance of the Supper especially; and it is like also, that that schism hath been occasioned, because of the corruption of some members, with whom others have scared to communicate; and therefore have not tarried for them: for, the Apostle doth particularly condemn this, and exhort them to tarry one for another; and to attain this, he doth clear them of what was necessary for right partaking, to wit, the examining of themselves, ver. 28. and doth declare unto them, that who so did eat unworthily, and did not prepare himself, did eat and drink damnation; but to himself, and not to others: wherefore, saith he, ye need not be so anxiously solicitous