John Owen, On Schism And The Nature Of The Church

By Henry M. Knapp

[Henry M. Knapp is a pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Beaver, Pa., and part-time facility at Geneva College. Beaver Falls, Pa.]

Although the Christian religion doth lay the greatest obligations on mankind to peace and unity, by the strictest commands, the highest examples, and the most prevailing arguments, yet so much have the passions and interests of men oversway’d the sense of their duty, that as nothing ought to be more in our wishes, so nothing seems more remote from our hopes, than the universal peace of the Christian world. (Bishop Edward Stillingfleet, The Mischief of Separation [1680], p. 1)

Following the splintering of English, Reformed-minded churchmen into numerous diverse ecclesiastical communities in the seventeenth century, the glaring absence of any visible unity between the bodies gave rise to a proliferation of accusations of schism. The guilt of this sin was viewed as so heinous by nearly all of Christendom that the accused could hardly ignore the charge. Responding to this reproach, the Nonconformist John Owen (1616-1683) defended himself and his Independent brethren by carefully analyzing the nature of the church and what defines its unity. His writings on this subject caused a spirited debate with Presbyterian and Anglican opponents.[1] Their arguments concerning the essential characteristics of the church, the constitutive elements of unity, and the biblical concept of schism highlight important systematic issues that remain relevant for ecclesiological discussions today.

I. Background On The Rise Of The Independents And The Charge Of Schism

Seventeenth-century England was a tumultuous time, both politically and ecclesiastically. The force of the Reformation upon the Englishman in the sixteenth century, especially with the anti-establishment preaching of the Tudor Puritans, eventually welled up in a revolutionary, anti-authoritarian ground-swell that plunged the country into civil war (1642-1648). In the latter half of the sixteenth century, numerous Reformed-minded churchmen had challenged certain elements of the structure and form of the state church as sanctioned by Elizabeth, and suffered persecution or exile as a result.[2] By and large, their main aim was to purify the Church of England, removing from it distasteful aspects of residual Popery, that is, aspects which seemed too similar to the Roman church. These clergymen were called Puritans and differed significantly from another group of religious dissidents, the Separatists, who, led by men like Robert Browne, John Smyth, and John Robinson, rejected out of hand the notion of an institutional state church and sought instead to form independent congregations. For the early part of the seventeenth century, the Separatists were marginalized and did not significantly affect the English political situation. The Puritans, on the other hand, recovered from their disappointment in the Stuart kings and, spurred on by the harsh policies of Archbishop William Laud, came to dominate the Long Parliament which was called by King Charles I to help deal with a military invasion from Scotland.[3]

While at times appearing like a cohesive movement, Puritanism was united more in what it stood against than in what it stood for. The experiential Calvinism of Puritan theology taught the people about the universality of both depravity and free grace—doctrines that “leveled” everyone to the same status. In doing so, the Puritan movement “lifted the lid on the religious Pandora’s box.”[4] Extending beyond religious matters, Puritan preaching gave rise to significant questions concerning the appropriateness of any authoritarian structure that appeared to emphasize the superiority of one over another. In this climate, political as well as ecclesiastical hierarchy was questioned and eventually threatened. The Presbyterian parliamentary leader William Prynne asked if the liberal wing of the revolution would not “by inevitable necessary consequence subvert... all settled forms of civil government. . . and make every small congregation, family, yea person if possible, an independent church and republic exempt from all other public laws?”[5] Thus, the spread of Reformed theology in England caused the flowering of debates concerning the true nature of government, both political and ecclesiastical.

While functioning effectively in opposition to authoritarian episcopal institutionalism as developed under Laud, the eventual weakness of the Puritan movement was located in the internal dissension that was generated by Puritan teaching. “The voluntarism implicit in [the Radical Puritans] represented instability disorder, and illegality to the contemporary mind.”[6] Every form of Puritan political government attempted in England or in the New World was eventually shattered from within, a collapse caused by the very anti-authoritarian forces that led to the Puritan revolution in the first place. Although it is misleading to claim, as Steve Bruce does, that “the Reformers created a situation highly conducive to factionalism and schism,”[7] the religious pluralism of the mid-seventeenth century can be linked with the fissile nature of conservative Protestantism’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

The political and ecclesiastical majority of Puritans at the outbreak of civil war between the king and Parliament were Presbyterians. Politically maintaining the importance of the parliamentary structure (less autocratic than the Royalists, but nevertheless far from fully democratic), the Presbyterians believed in and hoped for a national church built upon a system of elected elders, presbyteries, and synods. These Presbyterian Puritans stressed the gift of salvation as apart from, but not unconnected to, a structured church government. With the acceptance of the Solemn League and Covenant by Parliament and the work of the Westminster Assembly (minus the Five Dissenting Brethren) the ascension of Presbyterianism seemed assured.[8] There arose, however, as a natural consequence of Puritan preaching, a radical wing which stressed the total dominance of the internal work of God in the believer. This emphasis, evidenced by the Levelers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men, and other groups in the political sphere, led to the formation of independent congregations, that is, those who refused to acknowledge any significant role of the established church in salvation. These men and women were termed Independents (insisting on the independence of local congregations), Nonconformists (refusing to conform to the established state-church government), or Congregationalists (favoring the gathered church principle).[9]

Following the civil wars of 1642 through 1648, Oliver Cromwell sought to direct the religious life of the country as being shared between the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists. However, the Presbyterian dream of a national established church was fundamentally incompatible with the ecclesiastical vision of the Independents and Baptists. Rather than accepting the established church and seeking uniformity with it, the Puritan-Calvinistic notions in soteriology gave rise to democratic principles in church government, igniting the resistance of the Nonconformists.[10] Although only twenty years earlier almost everyone thought in terms of a national church roughly corresponding to the kingdom, by the middle of Cromwell’s Republic the reality of religious pluralism made the state-church concept unworkable.[11] Because of their rejection of the notion of a state church, those holding to the “gathered church” principle were labeled as schismatics by Presbyterians during Cromwell’s Commonwealth and Protectorate, and by Anglicans after the Restoration of the Church of England (1660).

To most Congregationalists, the accusation of schism was a serious charge and one against which they sought vigorously to defend themselves. Following the majority of theologians throughout the centuries, the Independent clergy recognized schism as a grave sin and acknowledged that anyone guilty of the sin should properly be rebuked and corrected. They did not, however, believe that their separation from other so-called Christian bodies constituted a schism in the biblical sense. Thus, Congregationalist writers did not attempt to justify their “schism” since, in their eyes, their dissent was not schismatic. Instead, the authors sought to demonstrate that their nonconformity to the established church was not the type of sinful schism which the Scriptures denounced, but a justifiable separation of a gathered church.[12]

One of the Nonconformists’ ablest defenders was the Puritan theologian John Owen. Owen wrote numerous treatises about the nature of the church, the role of ecclesiastical polity, the relationship of the minister to the laity, and the importance of unity among Protestant believers. Unity, the work of the Holy Spirit in Christian union, and brotherly love between those who disagree were persistent themes in Owen’s writings. Thus, the accusation of “schism” was a particular concern for him. To demonstrate that the Congregational Way was not schismatic, Owen published a defense of the movement entitled Of Schism.[13] This book was the beginning of a series of published disagreements concerning the question of schism in the “gathered churches.”

II. History Of Owen’s Writings On Schism

In the late 1650s, Owen’s main opponent was Daniel Cawdrey who responded to Of Schism with a tract entitled Independencie, A Great Schism Proved Against Dr. Owen’s Apology. Owen replied with A Review of the True Nature of Schism which did not add much of substance to the discussion, but did reprove Cawdrey for his aggressive and personal attack against Owen and his mentor John Cotton. Cawdrey rejoined with Independency Further Proved to be a Schism, which in large part continued his denouncement of Owen’s character. Owen dropped the futile debate after penning a short note in a book by Cotton, A Defence of Mr. John Cotton from the Imputation of Self Contradiction.[14]

Owen, however, faced a much more formidable adversary when, following the restoration of the Church of England, Bishop Edward Stillingfleet published his sermon The Mischief of Separation in 1680. In the estimation of Martin Lloyd-Jones, Stillingfleet was “a foeman worthy of his steel, and not merely a carping critic like a certain Mr. Cawdrey a Presbyterian, who simply abused him and vilified him.”[15] The Bishop’s reasonable and articulate treatise argued that the Independents were guilty of schism since they were willing to admit the Church of England to be a true church of Christ and yet they chose to live in a state of dissent and separation from it. Going far beyond the personal nature of Cawdrey’s attacks, Stillingfleet’s sermon brought forth a flood of replies from prominent Nonconformists including Richard Baxter and John Owen. Owen’s A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism is marked by its strength of reasoning, civility of language, and its powerful support for the Congregational churches. Stillingfleet, with equal rationality, courtesy, and force, countered with The Unreasonableness of Separation, or, an Impartial Account of the History, Nature, and Pleas of the Present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England. The author skillfully turned the weapons of the Presbyterian Westminster Assembly in their dispute with the Congregational “Five Dissenting Brethren” against all dissenters including the nonconforming Presbyterians of the 1680s. This impressive work was dealt with by Owen in his An Inquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches, where he puts the Church of England on the defensive by noting their ecclesiastical innovations and their departure from the apostolic communion. Thus, Owen argues that the guilt of schism lies with those Christian bodies that have departed from the apostolic model, not with the Independents who have preserved the biblical pattern.[16]

John Owen’s writings on schism provided not just the congregational churches but all Protestant ecclesiastical communities with a clear, well-articulated justification of separation from a worshipping body that is in dire need of reformation. However, Owen entered the debate over schism with a much deeper motive than simply to defend himself (and consequently all Protestants) from the guilt of schism—the fundamental root of his interest lay in discussing the true nature of the church itself.[17] Thus, while able to debate forcefully when so called upon, Owen’s main thrust throughout his writings on schism was not to be on the defensive, but to positively promote his understanding of the church and consequently to draw out the appropriate implications concerning the sin of schism.

III. The Definition Of Schism

The immediate goal for Owen was to demonstrate that the separation from the established Church of England, which he and other Nonconformists were involved in, was not a condemnable practice and certainly did not subject them to the charge of schism. The steadfast organizational structure of a universal church (at least in the West) had been shattered during the Reformation in the previous century. Nevertheless, the bulk of the population could not conceive of an organized church structure that was completely divorced from the national sphere. Politically, as well as ecclesiastically, being perceived as a schismatic was a serious charge, for it put the guilty party outside of what was conceived of as civilized behavior. In addition to the emotional character of being charged with schism, Protestant theologians were well aware of the seriousness of the sin that accompanies any schism. Thus, to be denounced as a schismatic carried both emotional and spiritual force.

The accusation of schism was bandied about so much during the seventeenth century that Owen concluded that people really did not understand the biblical meaning of the term.[18] Thus, Owen attempts first of all to clarify the understanding of the term. He pleads with his fellow Protestants that, following the Reformation’s key principle, the Scriptures should be the only norm by which sin or guilt is charged to another: “that alone shall be esteemed schism which is there so called [i.e., in the Scriptures], or which hath the entire nature of that which is so called. Other things may be other crimes; schism they are not, if in the Scripture they have neither the name nor nature of it attributed to them.”[19 ]A clear definition of what is meant by “schism” is central to Owen’s defense of the Nonconformists. It is important to note that Owen recognizes that “other things may be other crimes,” that is, Owen is not attempting to justify each and every separation from every church community: “that separation from churches is oftentimes evil is readily granted.”[20] Owen, however, believes that the accusation of schism is frequently inappropriate, and that every separation cannot be quickly judged as schismatic.

1. The Scriptural Definition Of Schism

Owen begins his analysis of the biblical material by citing the three different senses which the term σχίσμα entails. First, he notes with reference to Matt 9:16 and 27:51 that there is a “primitive native sense” where the meaning is a physical “scissure or division of parts before continued, by force or violent dissolution.”[21] Building upon this concrete meaning, Owen determines that the term is also used in Scripture in a metaphorical sense, especially in describing political divisions. For instance, John frequently describes the differences that arose within the Sanhedrin as σχίσμα (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19; cf. Acts 14:4; 23:7). Owen notes a third usage in the NT, derived from this metaphorical/political sense, which has an ecclesiastical, moral, and spiritual meaning: “differences of mind and judgment, with troubles ensuing thereon, amongst men met in some one assembly, about the compassing of a common end and design.”[22]

Analyzing, then, the purely ecclesiastical use of the designation “schism,” Owen notes that this sense of the term is confined only to the Corinthian church in the NT. Nowhere else in Scripture is the notion of schism dealt with in reference to the church community. According to Owen, the Corinthian church was divided over three issues: (1) doctrinal questions (the eating of meat previously sacrificed to idols, the resurrection), (2) conversation (the bragging about sin, disruptions at the Lord’s table), and (3) church-order (siding with their teachers against one another). The Apostle Paul rebukes the Corinthian church for its schisms over these issues—issues which, in Owen’s assessment, were “differences amongst themselves about unnecessary things.”[23] The essence of the Apostle’s charge was that, although they continued to meet together, they allowed their differences to disrupt the pursuit of their common end—the worship of God in Christ. The only schism condemned as such in the NT, then, is the schism which came about within the community of believers who continued to meet together as one church body.

From this scriptural analysis, Owen draws the following conclusions upon which he not only defends Congregationalists from the charge of schism, but also develops his understanding of the nature of the church as a whole. Owen concludes:

1. Schism occurs entirely within one church, amongst the members of one particular society. No mention is made of separations or “schisms” between churches, either true or falsely called.
2. Schism never is used of any particular person’s (or group’s) separation from the whole church. Rather, Paul finds the Corinthians to be schismatic because “they continued all in the joint celebration of that worship and performance together of those duties which were required of them in their assemblies; only they had groundless, causeless differences amongst themselves.”
3. No mention is made in the Scriptures which would allow the “subtraction of obedience from bishops or rules” to be equated with schism.[24]

Owen traces out these ideas in order to stress the inaccuracy of calling the Nonconformists schismatics. Schism in the NT is not a separation from the church, but a division without cause within one church body. “All the divisions of one church from another, or others, the separation of any one or more persons from any church or churches, are things of another nature, made good or evil by their circumstances, and not that at all which the Scripture knows and calls by the name of schism.”[25] Owen furthers his argument concerning the scriptural use of the term by analyzing its use in the Patristic period, especially in Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. He notes that Clement condemns the Corinthians for their schismatic attitude—not because of any separation from the church, disposition of elders, withdrawal of individuals, a ceasing to assemble, or the like, “but for their differences amongst themselves which was the ground of their so doing.”[26]

Owen held that schism, as defined by the Apostle, consists in “causeless differences and contentions amongst the members of a particular church, contrary to that exercise of love, prudence, and forbearance, which are required of them to be exercised amongst themselves, and towards one another.”[27] Arriving at, and abiding by, this definition is crucial to Owen, for he is intent on avoiding the misunderstanding and stigma attached to the casual use of the term. Owen’s Presbyterian opponent, Daniel Cawdrey refutes this notion of schism and seeks to prove that schism simply is “a breach of union in the catholic visible church.”[28] Owen, however, claims that Cawdrey mingles the biblical notions of schism and apostasy[29] and that the Presbyterian writes “in such a way and manner as argues that he either never understood [Owen’s ideas] or is willing to pervert them.”[30] On the other hand, Bishop Stilling-fleet views Owen’s definition as “so mean, so jejune, so narrow a notion of schism, that I cannot but wonder that men of understanding should be satisfied with it.”[31] Meanwhile, Owen rebuffs Stillingfleet for never once stating a clear biblical definition of the nature of schism, and instead accuses him of playing upon the consciences of men through his vague use of the term.[32]

Given his tightly controlled definition of schism, Owen proceeds to demonstrate that the Congregational churches are not guilty of the charge. According to the Scriptures, as Owen interprets them, for one to be guilty of schism, the following three elements must be present:

1. The person must be “a member of or belong to some one church, which is so by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ.”
2. He must “raise or entertain, and persist in, causeless differences with others of that church, more or less, to the interruption of that exercise of love . . . which ought to be amongst them.”
3. And finally, “these differences be occasioned by and do belong to some things, in a remoter or nearer distance, pertaining to the worship of God,” since this is the immediate end of the church.[33]

Cawdrey objects to this description of what accounts for schism in part because of the last element. He argues that Owen limits ecclesiastical schism to a disruption that occurs during the act of worship, a view which Cawdrey sees as simplistic, false, and “incoherent.”[34] Owen, however, sees this criticism as one more example that “this reverend author hath answered a matter before he understood it, and confuted a book whose main and chief design he did not once apprehend.”[35] Owen’s third qualification, that schism involves differences which pertain to the worship of God, merely serves to highlight for Owen the primary goal of any church community, that is, to worship God. Owen realizes that complete like-mindedness within any congregation is unattainable; yet those differences should not divide a congregation, and they do not constitute a schism in the church. Rather, Owen emphasizes that schism is a difference within a congregation which inhibits the worship of God.[36]

It is Owen’s first criteria, however, upon which he primarily defends the Congregationalists against the charge of schism. He repeatedly stresses that the separation of the Nonconformists from the Church of England is theologically and theoretically distinct from that sin. As noted in his exegesis, the Scripture never describes a separation from a church as schism, but reserves the term only for a causeless division within its members. Thus, Owen distinguishes between separation and schism. Given this definition, it is impossible to accuse the Congregationalists of schism simply for separating themselves from the Church of England. Since there is no internal dissension in their congregations, Owen can claim that “if our own congregations be not churches, whatsoever we are, we are not schismatics; for schism is an evil amongst the members of a church.”[37] Owen challenges those who would justifiably charge the Congregationalists with schism to identify divisive factions within their worshipping bodies—”Do we live in strife and variance? Do we not bear with each other? Do we not worship God without disputes and divisions? Have we differences and contentions in our assemblies? Do we break any bond of union wherein we are bound by the express institutions of Jesus Christ?”[38] Owen maintains that in the absence of such internal dissension there can be no schism.

2. Separation And Schism

Having analyzed the scriptural material relating to schism, Owen now discusses the biblical data concerning the separation from an existing church. For Owen, not every separation from the church is good or even justifiable. All blamable departure from any church or churches is identified in the Bible as either “apostasy,” “irregularity of walking,” or “professed sensuality.”[39] Scripture speaks of those who left the church and the gospel as apostates, not schismatics; referring to the First Epistle of John, Owen argues that “those who utterly deserted them [i.e., the churches] were apostates, not schismatics.”[40] For Cawdrey Owen’s distinction is mere word-play, intended simply to cloud the mind of the reader. Cawdrey insists that apostasy and schism are equal notions, differing only in degree. He asserts that any apostate separation must first begin with differences within the body, that is, schism. Thus, Cawdrey argues that apostasy naturally arises out of schism, thus conceptually equating the two terms.[41] Owen replies that this “is a new notion, unknown to antiquity, and contrary to all sound reason.”[42] He insists again that Scripture can be our only guide in identifying the sin of schism, and that the schism described in the Corinthian church gives no evidence of being apostasy. Interestingly, less than twenty years after Owen’s death, the great Archbishop of the Church of England, John Bramhall, used the same arguments, distinguishing between apostasy and schism, to conclude that “it is possible to infer that sometimes the people who are outside a Church are not the schismatics at all.”[43]

Owen’s more formidable opponent, Bishop Stillingfleet, in his sermon The Mischief of Separation, acknowledges a distinction between legal or justifiable separation and schism. He has in mind here the difference between the Church of England’s separation from Rome (which was justifiable) and the Nonconformists’ separation from the national church (which he views as schismatic). He defends the English Church’s break with Rome because the Church of England is one of the “whole churches” which “according to Scripture, antiquity, and reason, have a just right and power to govern and reform themselves. By whole churches, I mean the churches of such nations, which, upon the decay of the Roman empire, resumed their just right of government to themselves.”[44] While the distinction between the Church of England’s split with Rome and the Nonconformists’ separation from the Church of England was clear to Stillingfleet, his emphasis upon “whole churches” was seized upon by Owen in his defense of the Congregationalist dissenters. Given Stillingfleet’s definition, Owen declares, “I do suppose that particular churches or congregations are hereby exempted from all guilt of schism in not complying with rules of communion imposed on them by other churches,” because Owen considers particular churches to be “entire churches that have a just right and power to govern and reform themselves.”[45] According to Stillingfleet’s comments, until the congregational churches are proved either not to be churches because of their Congregationalism, or that they do not have the power to govern or reform themselves, they cannot be guilty of schism as defined in Stillingfleet’s sermon.

This, of course, is the direct opposite of what Stillingfleet intended to demonstrate.[46] Though Stillingfleet wonders” that men of understanding should be satisfied” with Owen’s definition of schism,[47] his own description of separation as distinct from schism is remarkably similar. The state of the controversy between Stillingfleet and Owen, however, was not centered upon their respective understandings of schism, but upon their understanding of the divine institution of the church. Stillingfleet maintained the national church to be of divine institution while Owen rejected this, asserting that Congregationalism is the only ecclesiastical body instituted by Christ.[48] Thus, while both parties agreed that some form of separation was justified, and that schism involved a disruption in the instituted church, they differed in what church was appointed by Christ. Owen states the question, in his typically involved manner, as

whether a dissent in, and forbearance from, the communion of churches, in their state and kind not of divine institution, or so far as they are not of divine institution, and from things in other churches that have no such divine institution, nor any scriptural authority to oblige us unto their observance, be to be esteemed schism in them who maintain and professedly avow communion in faith and love with all the true churches of Christ in the world.[49]

Owen is ready to grant that schism is a breach of union, with “one reasonable postulatum,—namely, that this union be a union of the appointment of Jesus Christ,” that the union be understood as having been instituted by Christ, and not by men.[50]

3. The Evil Of Schism

Having argued that the Independent congregations were not guilty of schism, one must hasten to clarify that Owen was by no means justifying individuals or groups of people who were appropriately charged with the crime. Owen does not disagree with the popular notion that makes schism “the greatest sin imaginable” and asserts that “about the aggravations of its sinfulness I shall not contend.”[51] Schism is “a defect in love and breach of the rule of Christ’s appointment for the communion and walking together of believers,” and is a most heinous crime.[52] Even Owen’s most partisan opponents, Daniel Cawdrey and William Sherlock, did not question the distaste with which Owen viewed schismatics.[53] Owen believed that “to live in schism is to live in sin; which, unrepented of, will ruin a man’s eternal condition,” and “every one charged with it must either desert his station, which gives foundation to this charge, or acquit himself of the crime in that station.”[54] With a great deal of insight and wisdom, Owen refuses to allow his readers to hide behind the guilt of others: “And I would beg of men fearing God that they would not think that the iniquity of their accusers doth in the least extenuate the crime whereof they are accused. Schism is schism still.”[55]

Owen well recognizes the gravity of the sin of schism; more than once he takes the time to clearly specify the manner in which it is offensive to the gospel. He cuts through the cliches and the popular propaganda, noting that defining schism as “the rending of the seamless coat of Christ” is picturesque but vague in its sentimentality, while viewing it as a sin against charity and love obscures the main object of the offense, Christ himself.[56] To participate in schism is to despise Christ: first, the authority of Jesus is despised, for he commanded us to forebear one another, to forgive, make peace, and so forth. Second, Christ’s wisdom is despised, for the creation of the church, existing without schisms, was his idea. And third, his grace and goodness are despised, because he graciously grants us the ability to avoid schism.[57] Given the seriousness with which Owen judged the sin of schism, it is easy to understand the strenuous efforts he took to exonerate himself and his dissenting brethren of the charge.

IV. The Nature Of The Church

From the above discussion of schism, it is apparent that one’s understanding of the nature of the church is crucial in determining how one views schisms and separations. In one sense, the debate between Owen, Cawdrey and Stillingfleet was really a debate about the scriptural understanding of the church, and only secondarily a discussion about schism. “You cannot decide what schism is until you have decided what the Church is.”[58] For Owen and other churchmen in the seventeenth century, the question was an important one. In Puritan thinking, ecclesiology had a definitive influence upon the believer. The doctrine of the church was a vitally important aspect of consistent Christian living. As Sinclair Ferguson comments, “The ancient maxim that there is no salvation outside of the church lies at the heart of [Owen’s] soteriology so long as salvation is taken in its full New Testament sense.”[59] Owen emphasizes this central role of the church while maintaining perspective on its overall purpose this way:

Let none mistake themselves herein; believers are not made for churches, but churches are appointed for believers. Their edification, their guidance and direction in the profession of the faith and performance of divine worship in assemblies, according to the mind of God, is their use and end; without which they are of no signification.[60]

Toward a greater understanding then of the church and schism, Owen proposes to discuss (1) what the scriptural church is, (2) what union is in light of this understanding of the church, and (3) how that union is broken.

1. Of The Church Militant

Throughout the dispute with Cawdrey and Stillingfleet, Owen persistently argued for a three-fold understanding of the scriptural use of ἐκκλησία:

1. The mystical body of Christ—his elect, redeemed, justified, and sanctified ones throughout the world; commonly called the church catholic militant, and also referred to by Owen as the invisible church.
2. The universality of men throughout the world called and yielding to the gospel, called the church catholic visible.
3. A particular church of some place, a gathered congregation of believers who join themselves together in covenant.[61]

The distinction between the invisible and visible church, generally understood as being two sides of the same reality, is a common one recognized by the Patristic Fathers, Reformers, and most English Puritans.[62] However, Owen’s insistence upon a third category, the particular church, and his assertion that the particular church is not simply one local manifestation of the visible church,[63] is unique and forms the crux of his argument.

Owen identifies the distinction between the invisible and visible church because of the two-fold call mentioned in Scripture: the effectual and the external. In the first sense (the invisible), the church has perpetuity, invisibility, and infallibility as “certain adjuncts of its nature and existence.”[64] Owen is careful to distinguish between these qualities and the “notes” whereby the church may be known. To Owen, the marks of the church are the ministry of the Word, the expression of the sacraments, exercise of discipline, and the promotion of the gospel through evangelism.[65] Owen marshals in-depth scriptural evidence to support the notion of an invisible church but concludes that to seek to prove that the militant church is comprised of all who are elect by God “is as needlessly actum agere as a man can well devise.”[66] Cawdrey rejects one of Owen’s main biblical texts, Matt 16:18 where the promise that hell will not prevail over the church is given, asserting that the passage refers specifically to the visible church. However, Owen definitively supports his interpretation with other biblical, theological, and historical evidences.[67] The invisible church is so called because “men elected, redeemed, justified, as such, are not visible, for that which makes them so is not.”[68]

What, then, is the nature of the union of this church, and how is it broken? Owen contends that the union of the church militant “consists in its joint holding the Head, and growing up into him . . . the inhabitation of the same Spirit which makes Christ personal . . . whereby we are by the promise made partakers [of the divine nature].”[69] As a consequence of this union, the double blessing of faith and mutual love naturally flows from and to “all members of the church catholic, however divided in their visible profession by any differences among themselves, or differenced by the several measures of gifts and graces they have received.”[70] The breaching of this union consists of two things: (1) “the casting out, expelling, and losing that Spirit which, abiding in us gives us this union,” and (2) “the loss of that love which thence flows into the body of Christ and believers as parts and members thereof.”[71] Owen, firmly rooted in the Reformed doctrines, is convinced that this kind of breach in the invisible church is impossible: “this union was never utterly broken by any man taken into it, nor ever shall be to the end of the world.”[72] As for the charge of schism leveled against the Congregational churches, as far as the invisible church is concerned, Owen declares that “unless men can prove that we have not the Spirit of God, that we do not savingly believe in Jesus Christ, that we do not sincerely love all the saints, his whole body, and every member of it, they cannot disprove our interest in the catholic Church.”[73] And regarding ecclesiastical bodies, on this basis Owen allows that there are most likely members of the invisible church in the Anglican, Presbyterian, and even Roman churches, except for those explicitly excluded from the church militant (i.e., idolaters, adulterers, etc.).[74]

2. Of The Visible Church

Owen did not expect, nor did he receive, much criticism concerning his views on the church militant. However, because of the manner in which he understood the distinction between the visible church and the particular church, his opinions here were significantly more controversial. Owen distinguished the biblical idea of the effectual call (creating the invisible church) from the external call; it is in the latter sense that he separates the invisible and the visible, “for all that truly believe profess, though all that profess do not truly believe.”[75] Thus, Owen’s second notion of the church “signifies the universality of men professing the doctrine of the Gospel and obedience to God in Christ.”[76] Owen acknowledges a universal church (in the visible sense) but questions the connection between this universal church and individual particular churches. While the local congregation is composed of those wishing to join together to worship God, the universal church exists because all Christians throughout the world profess one common faith and hope. But to assume that the entire visible church should appear like each individual congregation (as though there is no valid distinction between them)—hearing one sermon, bound by one set of officers, held together by one sacrament—”is ridiculous to imagine” and only those “who gain profit by the fable” would hold to such a notion.[77] While Owen’s comments appear to be directed against the Roman church (and perhaps certain Laudian elements in the Church of England), it was the Presbyterian Cawdrey who fiercely attacked the idea of separating the local congregation and the visible church. He maintained that Owen was generating distinctions in the biblical term ἐκκλησία which were unknown to the Reformers and “all reasonable men.”[78] Stillingfleet, likewise, while not rejecting Owen’s understanding of the visible church, wonders whether the constitute elements of that church are not indeed the particular churches.[79] Owen, however, continued to insist upon a biblical distinction of the visible church and the local congregation.[80]

What union is there then in this form of universal church? The union is not spiritual since that is the mark of the militant church discussed above. Nor is it found in common worship, practices, or government. Rather, the unity of the universal church “is summed up by the Apostle, Eph iv.5, ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’ ... it is the unity of the doctrine of faith which men profess, in subjection to one Lord, Jesus Christ, being initiated into that profession by baptism.”[81] Owen anticipates that his readers will want to know what exactly is involved in a profession of faith. It is the profession of “fundamental” or “first principles,” with no other belief that undercuts the first principles, and a conduct that demonstrates that those principles are not held in disdain. In summary,

the belief and profession of all the necessary saving truths of the gospel, without the manifestation of an internal principle of the mind inconsistent with the belief of them, or adding of other things in profession that are destructive to the truths so professed, is the bond of the unity of the visible professing church of Christ.[82]

Though Owen oriented his discussion around the “fundamentals,” he fails to specify what exactly those fundamentals are, and his critics take him to task over it. Stillingfleet complains that Owen “sets no bounds to differences” and thus allows the continuation of differences which he hoped to avoid.[83] Owen appears either not to have understood the essence of the Bishop’s complaint or to have felt that the answer is very plain, for in response he merely asserts that his previous statements were clear that the fundamentals deal with “the substantials of religion.”[84]

Given this view, what then marks a breach in the union of the visible church? It is simply a denial or failure to profess the fundamentals, or a life in conformity with them, or the presence of additional elements to the gospel message. If these cannot be proved, a man can justly claim “the privilege of being a member of the visible church of Christ in the world, though he never in all his life be a member of a particular church.”[85] But is deviation from those fundamentals properly labeled schism? Once again, Owen stoutly rejects this unbiblical use of the term. A breach of union in the visible church—those who confess one Lord, one faith, one baptism—”their crime is not schism, but apostasy, either as to profession or conversation.”[86]

3. Of The Particular Church

Owen insists that the most frequent use of the term ἐκκλησία in the Scriptures is of a particular congregation meeting together locally to worship God. This form of instituted church is “a society of men called by the word to the obedience of the faith in Christ, and joint performance of the worship of God in the same individual ordinances, according to the order by Christ prescribed.”[87] The particular church is the place where the worship of God is to be celebrated in the manner which Christ himself appointed.[88] The thrust of Owen’s argument is highly christocentric: one must not talk about “church” unless the focus is upon Christ—not only in worship, but also in institution. Thus, ‘Jesus Christ alone is the author, contriver, and institutor” of the particular church, and that form of church alone.[89] Owen demands that Christ alone be understood as the appointer of all proper authority and legislation concerning the church’s order, rule, and worship; anything else is from men not God. “There is no legislative power in and over the church, as unto its form, order, and worship, left unto any of the sons of men, under any qualification whatever.”[90] To assume otherwise is derogatory to the glory of Christ.

Owen finds that he cannot emphasize enough that the local congregation is the only true form of earthly church instituted by the Lord. Every other church structure and government is a creation of man and consequently carries no binding force upon the believer. How then is the particular church to function? Only with regard to “that which is made evident in the Scriptures to be the mind and will of Christ.”[91] And, of course, Owen believes that the institution of a local church (as opposed to any other form) as manifest during the apostolic age is a sufficient indication of the mind of Christ.

The visible church-state which Christ hath instituted under the New Testament consists in an especial society or congregation of professed believers, joined together according unto his mind, with their officers, guides, or rulers, whom he hath appointed, which do or may meet together for the celebration of all the ordinances of divine worship, the professing and authoritatively proposing the doctrine of the gospel, with the exercise of the discipline prescribed by himself, unto their own mutual edification, with the glory of Christ, in the preservation and propagation of his kingdom in the world.[92]

Thus, Owen argues for two ideas: (1) that the only church-state appointed by Christ is the particular or single congregation, and (2) that no other church-state that is inconsistent with the independence of the particular congregation is biblical.[93]

How is unity to be understood? Owen sees a double foundation or cause of union in the particular church, the one external, the other internal. The external union is found in the requirement of peace and order, union, consent, and agreement, in and among all the members of an individual congregation. The internal union is rooted in the love the members have for one another. Thus, the union is based upon “the joint consent of all the members of it, in obedience to the command of Christ, from a principle of love, to walk together in the universal celebration of all the ordinances of the worship of God . . . this is the union inquired after.”[94] Owen does grant that “there is a communion also to be observed between these churches, as such, which is sometimes, or may be, exerted in their assemblies by their delegates, for declaring their sense and determining things of joint concernment unto them.”[95] This form of bond between churches even “ought to” exist. However, Owen stresses that any communion on this level is purely voluntary and that the failure to participate in such a union is no breach of morality, for this “superstructure” is not ordained by Christ and cannot be made mandatory on others.[96]

A breach of this union must be evaluated carefully. Owen claims that any secession or departing from a particular church is not schism and its justification must be determined according to its own circumstances. A separation “cannot be rendered evil” if done “without strife, variance, judging, and condemning of others.”[97] In addition, one church refusing to hold communion with another is not schismatic, nor even morally wrong, though Owen does not appear to advocate such total individuality. Again, Owen repeats that schism, as the Scriptures define it, is a causeless division within the members of one congregation. In summary

He belongs to the church catholic who is united to Christ by the Spirit, and none other. And he belongs to the church general visible who makes profession of the faith of the gospel, and destroys it not by any thing of a just inconsistency with the belief of it. And he belongs to a particular church who, having been in due order joined thereunto, hath neither voluntarily deserted it nor been judicially ejected out of it.[98]

4. Implications Concerning A National Church

Owen’s uncompromising insistence upon the particular church as the only form of church-state instituted by Christ, placed him in direct conflict with the post-Restoration Presbyterians, the Church of England, and of course the Roman church. Owen points out that a national church cannot be identified with the church militant, universal (i.e., visible), or the particular church. Since the Scripture uses ἐκκλησία in these three senses only, the national church is an unbiblical concept. Furthermore, Owen denies that such a church was ever instituted on earth by Christ, or by the apostles in his name. He rejects the notion that “there is a national church, that is entrusted with supreme church-power in the nation whereof it is.”[99] He does grant that legal, political powers created national churches, but they have no divine authority. It is in light of this denial of the legitimacy of the national church that the Nonconformist Confession, the Savoy Declaration, can claim that there is no universal church “in the present sense contended about.”[100]

Unity, according to the national church model, consists in the subjection of the local congregation to political officers, something completely foreign to the witness of Scripture. Since, therefore, the national church is a creation of men and not a spiritual reality, Owen can claim, “it is no crime to depart from nothing.”[101] “It is unity of Christ’s appointment that schism respects as a sin against it, and not uniformity in things of men’s appointment.”[102] The effect of national politics cannot be differentiated from ecclesiastical issues; “the business of schism from the Church of England is a thing built purely and simply on political considerations, so interwoven with them, so influenced from them, as not to be separated.”[103] Lloyd-Jones summarizes, “The great point is that we are only to be concerned about that which is instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”[104]

Owen, however, was unwilling to refuse completely all communion with the established churches, and it is over this issue that his critics object. The Congregationalists in general pleaded that “in sundry things they have communion with the church of England; and in some things they have not, nor can have it so.”[105] Stillingfleet rejects the notion that one can have occasional communion with other Christians but not full communion. He argues that simply allowing occasional communion does not excuse the guilt of separation, and that if occasional communion is allowed, then constant communion should necessarily and logically follow as an undeniable duty.[106] In his sermon, the Bishop summarizes the Nonconformists’ position, and notes the illogical (and, consequentially, sinful] nature of their separation. In the debate concerning communion with the Church of England, dissenters (1) “unanimously confess that they find no fault with the doctrine” of the established church, (2) grant that the parochial churches are valid churches, and (3) acknowledge some measure of communion with the Church to be lawful.[107] Given this, Stillingfleet asks, how can it not be sinful to separate from the Church of England since Nonconformists believe that the Church has all the essentials of true churches?[108] The Bishop further notes that a national church has a better possibility of accomplishing the ends of the church than does a collection of independent congregations; he asks “whether single congregations dispersed and disunited over a nation; or a combination of them together under some common bond as to faith, government, and worship, be the more likely way to promote religion, to secure the peace and tranquillity of the church?”[109]

Owen quickly rises to the challenge and answers Stillingfleet’s queries. He does not draw back from accepting the Church of England’s congregations as true churches, but he rejects Stillingfleet’s assumption that the Church of England is “a true church in its national constitution and so are all the parochial churches in it.”[110] Regardless of its reformed worship and theology Congregationalist clergy were challenging the notion of the church as a political or institutional organization. Owen proceeds to list the reasons why complete communion with the Church of England is not possible:[111]

1. The English Church was in dire need of reformation and would not reform themselves. “Need of reformation” is defined as “the woful degeneracy of the generality of its members . . . from the rule of the Gospel and commands of Christ, as unto spiritual light, faith, love, holiness, charity, and abounding in the fruits of righteousness unto the praise of God. . . . Where these are neglected, where they are not attained, where they are not duly improved by the generality of the members of any church, that church, I think, stands in need of reformation.”[112] This need of reform, Owen notes, is not in itself a cause for withdrawal of communion, but it nevertheless shows the disastrous deterioration of the established church.
2. The governmental structure of the parochial churches is not of divine institution, but from men, and thus without authority.
3. There is no fixed standard of truth or rule of faith to be professed. Owen demonstrates that the Thirty-nine Articles do not function as a standard for the Church of England.
4. The inability of the local congregations to choose their own officers and leaders.

Stillingfleet takes Owen to task for supposing that all church power was originally rooted in the congregation, “an opinion so absurd and unreasonable, that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a person.”[113] Owen, of course, meant that the congregations’ voluntary consent to the pastor was essential for determining God’s leading, a point he later highlights with support from the Reformers.[114] Owen sums up the Nonconformists’ objections to the national church this way:

We do not, we cannot, believe that our refusal of a total compliance with a rule for order, discipline, worship, and ceremonies in the church, not given by Christ and his apostles, but requiring of us sundry things either in themselves or as required of us directly contrary unto, or inconsistent with, the rules and directions given us by them unto those ends ... is either schism or blamable separation. We do judge ourselves obliged to preserve peace and unity among Christians by all the means that Christ hath appointed for that end,—by the exercise of all graces, the performance of all duties, the observation of all rules and directions given us for that end; but we do not, we cannot, believe that to neglect the means of our own edification, appointed unto us by Christ himself, to cast away the liberty wherewith he hath made us free, and to destroy our own souls for ever by acting against his authority in his word, and our own consciences guided thereby, is a way or means for the attaining of that end.[115]

V. The Spirit Of The Debate

One final, tangential issue can be deduced from the controversy stirred up by Owen’s Of Schism and Stillingfleet’s sermon The Mischief of Separation, and that is the role of the character and disposition of the debaters. The manner in which one presented one’s case and argued against opponents in the seventeenth century was unique to that time period and temperament. Adversaries were often brusque, aggressive, severe, and even condemning. They held strongly to their opinions, considered them to be of great importance, and stoutly rejected what they perceived as errors and falsehoods. In short, the doctrinal content of the issues in debate was viewed with great importance, a conviction frequently reflected in the use of strong and provocative language. The passion and determination with which Owen, Cawdrey, and Stillingfleet debated Nonconformity is manifestly evident on every page of their writings. One cannot doubt their sincerity or commitment to their respective positions.

However, regardless of the strength of their convictions, and the assertive nature of their expressions, a difference of character is readily perceivable in the style and direction of their writings. For although Owen passionately disagreed with Cawdrey and Stillingfleet (who clearly did not agree with each other), the manner in which he presents his arguments reveals his pastoral interests, a level of humility, an openness to change his opinions, and a respectful approach to his adversaries. Again, this does not mean that his writings sound conciliatory to the modern reader. On the contrary, his arguments are frequently laced with a biting wit or penetrating condemnation. But, viewed within his own time, and particularly when compared with his contemporaries, Owen’s style demonstrates a genuine attempt toward civility.

First, one should note the ecumenical spirit that regularly appears in Owen’s and Stillingfleet’s work. Stillingfleet was stung by the accusation that his sermon was intended to lead to trouble for the Independents. “I was so far from intending to stir up the magistrates and judges to a persecution of dissenters as some ill men have reported, that my only design was to prevent any occasion of it, by finding out a certain foundation for a lasting union among our selves.”[116] When it was pointed out that Stillingfleet’s sermon was delivered before magistrates and others who had the power to persecute Nonconformists and consequently who questioned his sincerity,[117] Stillingfleet responded again that this notion was “malicious” and that he had no intention “to inflame our differences, and to raise a fresh persecution against dissenting Protestants.”[118] A similar note is often sounded by Owen. For instance, he begins his discussion on schism with the following observation:

I confess I would rather, much rather, spend all my time and days in making up and healing the breaches and schisms that are amongst Christians than one hour in justifying our divisions, even therein wherein, on the one side, they are capable of a fair defence. But who is sufficient for such an attempt? The closing of differences amongst Christians is like opening the book in the Revelation,—there is none able or worthy to do it, in heaven or in earth, but the Lamb. ... A reconciliation amongst all Protestants is our duty, and practicable, and had perhaps ere this been in some forwardness of accomplishment had men rightly understood wherein such a reconciliation, according to the mind of God, doth consist. . . . When men have laboured as much in the improvement of the principle of forbearance as they have done to subdue other men to their opinions, religion will have another appearance in the world.[119]

The purpose with which Owen engaged in the debate was not, as Cawdrey charged,[120] to advance his own personal reputation or to belittle his opponents. Rather, with respect to his later discussion with Stillingfleet over the interpretation of Phil 3:16, Owen asserts that he is writing, “not to manage a controversy with this author or any other, but only to show that there is no ground to be taken from this text or its context to give countenance unto the severe censure of schism and all the evil consequences of it.”[121] Owen recognized that perfect agreement was not possible and insisted that love, forbearance, and mutual approach to God were the only methods by which one can discuss disagreements.[122] The intolerance of the established church toward Nonconformists, however, unfortunately pushed Owen to defend his brethren: “We delight not in these contentions, that we desire nothing but mutual love and forbearance, but we are compelled ... to abide in this defence of ourselves.”[123]

Second, in his debate with Cawdrey, Owen’s own humility and openness to conform to the truth of Scripture is evident. Following the publication of Of Schism, Cawdrey used Owen’s earlier work, The Duty of Pastor and People Distinguished,[124] to charge him with inconsistency. In his previous book, Owen had promoted the Presbyterian governmental system from which, of course, he departs in his later works. Cawdrey uses this shift to denounce Owen’s character and thinking as being unreliable and incoherent.[125] Owen incredulously replies, “Hinc mihi sola mali labes. This is that inexplicable crime that I labor under!”[126] Owen demonstrates that his own personal history in moving from the Presbyterian to the Congregationalist position was a result of his study of Scripture and a maturation in his thinking, and that the great difference in his two books was largely a “misapplication of names and things by me.”[127] He further points out examples of his openness to conversations and other evidences, which have influenced the direction of his thinking.[128] The sum total of this is that Owen’s own experience revealed his openness to humbly reflect upon his positions in light of the testimony of the Scriptures.[129]

This is further demonstrated by the apparent willingness on Owen’s part to seek to close the distance between the Nonconformists’ camps in post-Restoration England. Owen cautiously suggested that “for my part, so we could once agree in the matter of our churches, I am under some apprehension that it were no impossible thing to reconcile the whole differences as to a Presbyterian church or a single congregation.”[130] This led to a meeting and exchange of letters between Owen and “the over-optimistic Baxter” who was “ever ready to discuss proposals for unity.”[131] The correspondence, however, reveals the gulf in ends which doomed the proposed unity—Baxter sought to unite Nonconformists to gain entry on generous terms into the Church of England, while Owen desired a unity outside the national church built upon tolerance.[132]

Third, a casual look at the documents in question reveals the importance of civility and respect when discussing differences. In this case, Owen and Stilling-fleet (who differed greatly in their opinions) offer a distinct contrast to the abusive Cawdrey or the disrespectful Sherlock who entered the controversy, in the opinion of Owen’s nineteenth-century editor, William Goold, “with his vizor down.”[133] Stilfingfleet announces that he is able to promote his case with conviction, yet without “sharp and provoking expressions on the persons of any.”[134] His purpose is to weigh the effect of the “schism” brought about by the Nonconformists, not to condemn those with whom he disagrees: “God forbid, that I should judge anyone among them, as to their present sincerity, or final condition; to their own Master they must stand or fall: But my business was to consider, the nature and tendency of their actions.”[135]

This civility was recognized by the debaters themselves. In contrast with Richard Baxter’s response to his sermon (who the Bishop said “appeared with so much anger, and unbecoming passion that I truly pitied him”), Stillingfleet asserts that Owen “treated me with that Civility and decent language, that I cannot but return him thanks for it” though he goes on to express his dissatisfaction with Owen’s arguments.[136] Owen, acknowledging Stillingfleet’s desire not to personally attack his opponents, notes that “it is, indeed, beneath the gravity and dignity of this reverend author to bring reviling or railing accusations against any; neither will he, I am sure, give countenance to such a practice in others, which is seldom used by men of very mean consideration.”[137]

The practice of reviling and railing against one’s opponent, however, was not beneath the dignity of Daniel Cawdrey Goold claims that in promoting his own opinions, the Presbyterian “assailed both the principles and the character of Dr. Owen in no very measured terms.”[138] Although he formally refers to Owen as “the learned Doctor” and “the reverend author,” there is little respect behind those terms. Cawdrey frequently reverts to using labels such as Brownist, Anabaptist, Quaker, and especially Donatist.[139] In both of Cawdrey’s works, Owen is reviled “from one end to the other, and called, partly in downright terms, partly by oblique intimations, whose reflections are not to be waived, Satan, atheist, skeptic, Donatist, heretic, schismatic sectary, Pharisee, etc.”[140] Although Owen emphatically denies the charges in his response to Cawdrey, in his follow-up work Cawdrey merely reasserts the same accusations. Rather than distance himself from this unflattering analysis of his work, Cawdrey actually defends each name in turn showing how they appropriately apply to Owen.[141] In his first response, Owen demonstrates the injustice of the charges, defends his earlier writings, and offers a calm and dignified rebuke of the petty spirit with which Cawdrey wrote. Owen urges Cawdrey to avoid an “unchristian” attitude and cease “by evil surmises, to wrong me and your own soul.”[142] Finally, Owen closes the treatise with “I humbly beg of this reverend author that he would review, in the presence of the Lord, the frame of spirit wherein he wrote this charge.”[143] However, rather than pursue the discussion in a more civil manner, Cawdrey turns Owen’s rebuke aside and levels similar accusations against him.[144] Owen finally removes himself from the debate noting that “the state of the controversy between us is now degenerated into such a useless strife of words . . . that I cannot, with peace in my own retirement, be much further conversant therein.”[145] The unprofitable nature of the Owen/Cawdrey debate is vividly contrasted with the theologically valuable writings of Owen and Stillingfleet— one wonders whether the style of the controversy did not greatly influence the quality of the ensuing discussion.

VI. Systematic Considerations

The debate between Owen, Cawdrey and Stillingfleet gives rise to various issues which have direct bearing upon any systematic discussion of the theology of the church, particularly those related to ecumenical questions. A short summary of the more relevant ones which were addressed in this article follows.

First, Owen’s understanding of the particular church being the only divinely instituted church-state drives his entire ecclesiology Few theologians prior to the Nonconformists in the seventeenth century advocated the scriptural identification of ἐκκλησία with a single congregation in the manner in which Owen does. If, indeed, Owen’s thinking concerning the particular church is correct, his analysis of schism, the national church, and unity seem unavoidable. However, one first must prove that in instituting the church, Christ only envisioned local communities, unconnected with one another except on a voluntary basis, that is, that the notion of “church” in the apostolic period corresponds directly with the issues facing the community of believers in the seventeenth (or twenty- first) century. Congregational polity, as advanced by Owen and other Nonconformists, has sweeping effects upon a whole range of ecclesiastical questions, including the nature of its officers, worship patterns, congregational membership, and ecumenical relationships. The question of the exact nature of the divinely instituted church, touched on here, is crucial in all discussions on ecclesiology.

Second, if we concede Owen’s Congregationalism, it is still questionable if we should accept Owen’s definition of schism. He has marshaled significant scriptural evidence for his proposition, yet as mentioned above, the manner in which one translates that biblical evidence to the contemporary situation needs further examination. Especially today, given the proliferation of ecclesiastical communities, how should we view the separation of worshipping bodies one from another? Although Owen may be technically correct concerning the biblical definition of schism—and, consequently, we must be more careful with how we use the term—that does not excuse us from evaluating the appropriateness of the manifold divisions which occur almost daily. Is, as Owen identifies, every separation justifiable as long as it does not involve internal strife? What are the criteria whereby one can determine if a separation is appropriate? Given the high value placed upon unity in the Scriptures, and the equally high view of truth, these are unavoidable ecclesiastical questions. Owen, Cawdrey and Stillingfleet have helped us properly define terms and limit the discussion, but the core issue remains.

Third, what do we make of Owen’s description of unity? Is it too simplistic, too little? With what may now be regarded as remarkable naivete, Owen believed that the congregational polity advocated for by Independents was the true pathway to biblical unity. By reducing the goal of unity to the scriptural essentials of mutual faith and love, Owen thought that individual congregations could find true communion. However, his plan allowed for no formal structural or organizational principles. Even the “fundamentals” upon which one was recognized as part of the visible church were not articulated by Owen. While love and faithfulness are indeed marks of Christian union, can we not expect more definitive guidance in the concrete expression of those qualities? The Nonconformists appropriately demonstrated the inability of viewing unity as an institutional expression; however, their own statement of the goal must be further developed.

Fourth, the controversy as outlined above shows the importance of approaching ecclesiastical (and especially ecumenical) discussion with the proper Christian spirit. In contrast with Owen/Cawdrey the Owen/Stillingfleet exchange not only exhibited a fair amount of civility toward one another (relative to their times!), but it also advanced the quality of the theological debate. The strength of their writing styles, however, is that they were able to express themselves cordially while maintaining their own firmly held beliefs. By treating each other and their arguments with respect and accuracy, the opponents exemplified the manner in which all Christian discussion should take place—with strong conviction, yet coupled with a willingness to engage graciously with other thinkers. Owen’s “conversion” to Congregationalism is a further example of the humility with which everyone must subject their own ideas to the Scriptures. The banter between Owen and Cawdrey on the other hand, demonstrates the unfruitfulness of demonizing one’s opponent and caricaturing their ideas. Both these examples—one positive, one negative—should instruct every participant in the ongoing ecclesiastical discussions.

Notes

1. The term Anglican is anachronistically used occasionally throughout this article to refer to those who upheld the established state church, the Church of England. The “nickname” actually did not become popular until a couple of generations following the era considered in our present discussion.
2. For a summary of the early stages of the Puritan Movement in Tudor England see William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (New York: Harper, 1938), chs. 1—3; Alan Simpson, Puritanismin Old and New England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), ch. 1; Harry Porter, Puritanism in Tudor England (London: MacMillian, 1970).
3. The Puritan influence in seventeenth-century England is well documented in Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution (Edinburgh: Nelson, 1961); Haller, The Rise of Puritanism, chs. 4—6.
4. John Spurr, “Schism and the Restoration Church,” JEH 41 (1990): 411; cf. Blair Worden, “Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate,” in Persecution and Toleration (ed. W J. Sheils; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984), 206-8; Haller, The Rise of Puritanism, ch. 5; Simpson, Puritanism in Old and New England, chs. 3—4.
5. William Prynne, Twelve Considerable, Serious Questions Touching Church Government (London, 1644), Question 5 A2r
6. Ellen More, “Congregationalism and the Social Order,” JEH 38 (1987): 211; cf. Hill, The Century of Revolution, part 2; Simpson, Puritanism in Old and New England, ch. 3.
7. Steve Bruce, “A House Divided: Protestant Schisms and the Rise of Religious Tolerance,” in Sociological Analysis 47 (1986): 27.
8. Hywel Jones, “The Death of Presbyterianism,” in By Schisms Rent Asunder: Papers Read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1969 (London: The Westminster Conference, 1969), 32-35.
9. See Erik Routley, The Story of Congregationalism (London: Independent Press, 1961); Marion Starkey, The Congregational Way (New York: Doubleday 1966); and Geoffrey Nuttall, Visible Saints: The Congregational Way, 1640—1660 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), for a concise summary of the history of the congregational movement.
10. Nuttall, Visible Saints, chs. 1-2.
11. J. Wayne Baker, “Church, State, and Toleration,” in Later Calvinism (ed. W Graham; Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publications, 1994), 525-26.
12. Spurr, “Schism and the Restoration Church,” 408-11; Nuttall, Visible Saints, 62-65, 121-24.
13. John Owen, Of Schism (1657) in The Works of John Owen (ed. William Goold; 23 vols.; 1850-1855; repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1991), 13: 89-206. Hereafter references to The Works of John Owen will be designated Works.
14. Daniel Cawdrey, Independencie, A Great Schism Proved against Dr. Owen’s Apology (London, 1657): John Owen, A Review of the True Mature of Schism, with a Vindication of the Congregationall Churches in England (1657), in Works, 13:207-75; Daniel Cawdrey, Independency Further Proved to be a Schism; or, A Survey of Dr. Owen’s Review of his Tract on Schism (1658); John Owen, An Answer to a Late Treatise of Mr. Cawdrey about the Mature of Schism, in A Defence of Mr. John Cotton from the Imputation of Self Contradiction, Charged on him by Mr. Dan Cawdrey, by John Cotton (published posthumously; Oxford, 1658); Owen’s Answer is also found in Works, 13:277-302.
15. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, ‘John Owen on Schism,” in Diversity in Unity: Papers Read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1963 (London: The Westminster Conference, 1963), 60.
16. Edward Stillingfleet, The Mischief of Separation (London: Mortlock, 1680); John Owen, A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism (1680), in Works, 13:303-42; Edward Stillingfleet, The Unreasonableness of Separation, or, An Impartial Account of the History, Mature, and Pleas of the Present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England (London: Mortlock, 1682); John Owen, An Inquiry into the Original, Mature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches (1681), in Works, 15:187-444. See also, William Sherlock, A Discourse about Church Unity: Being a Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet (London: Chiswel, 1681).
17. Lloyd-Jones, “John Owen on Schism,” 60.
18. Ibid., 61.
19. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:99.
20. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:240.
21. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:100.
22. Ibid., 101.
23. Ibid., 102.
24. Ibid., 103.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 104.
27. Ibid., 108.
28. Cawdrey, Independencie, 55-56, ch. 5.
29. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:255. And see below.
30. Owen, An Answer, in Works, 13:283. See also Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:228.
31. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, xlvi.
32. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:194-95.
33. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:109-10.
34. Cawdrey, Independencie, 33-38.
35. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:228.
36. Ibid., 230.
37. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:117.
38. Ibid.
39. See ibid., 120-22, for Owen’s definitions and biblical support for these terms.
40. Ibid., 103.
41. Cawdrey, Independency Further Proved, 39-45, ch. 6.
42. Owen, Answer, in Works, 13:298.
43. H. F. Woodhouse, “John Bramhall’s Works on Schism,” Theology 63 (1960): 324.
44. Stillingfleet, Mischief of Separation, 16.
45. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:315.
46. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, ii-iii. See also 290-93.
47. Ibid., xlvi.
48. Cf. ibid., 287-97; Stillingfleet, Mischief of Separation, 19; Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:182-91; Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:245-50; Owen, Inquiry, in Works, vol. 15, chs. 4, 7. See also Sherlock, A Discourse about Church Unity, 301-32, 559-61.
49. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:212.
50. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:123; Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:319. Cf. Lloyd-Jones, “John Owen on Schism,” 64.
51. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:91. Cf. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:240; Owen, Answer, in Works, 13:282-83. See also other Reformed objections to schism: John Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.10-16; William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 1.32.28-30.
52. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:217.
53. Cawdrey, Independencie, 1-5; Sherlock, A Discourse about Church Unity, 298-300.
54. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:94.
55. Ibid., 94.
56. Ibid., 111-13.
57. Cf. Lloyd-Jones, ‘John Owen on Schism,” 63-64.
58. Ibid., 65.
59. Sinclair Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1987), 154. See also, Haller, The Rise of Puritanism, chs. 3—4.
60. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:317.
61. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:124-25; Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:233.
62. See, e.g., Augustine, The City of God and Bapt. 3.19.26; Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.3, 7; Ames, Marrow of Theology, 1.31.24-39; Westminster Confession of Faith 27.
63. In contrast with Cawdrey, Independencie, 55-63, see Owen, Tue Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:248; Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:137.
64. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:125.
65. See Ferguson, The Christian Life, 158-59. Note that with the addition of discipline and evangelism, Owen’s four marks are an advance past Calvin’s [Inst, 4.1.9).
66. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:127.
67. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:245. Cf. Cawdrey, Independencie, ch. 5.
68. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:128.
69. Ibid., 129.
70. Ibid., 130.
71. Ibid., 131.
72. Ibid., 132- Cf. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:245.
73. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:132.
74. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:215-17; Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:318, 328-29; Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:348-54; Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:136. Cawdrey repeatedly denies that Owen could consistently hold this position, Cawdrey, Independencie, passim; Cawdrey Independency Further Proved, chs. 2—4. Owen’s claim here is also the basis upon which Stillingfleet launched his attack against the Nonconformists, Stillingfleet, Mischief of Separation, 18-20; Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 149-61.
75. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:125.
76. Ibid., 137.
77. Ibid., 138.
78. Cawdrey, Independencie, chs. 5, 7; Cawdrey, Independency Further Proved, 164-65.
79. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 292.
80. See Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:137-39, for Owen’s biblical data.
81. Ibid., 145.
82. Ibid., 147.
83. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 168-69.
84. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:386.
85. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:150.
86. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:250. As noted above, this is a very different understanding of schism and apostasy than that held by Cawdrey Independency Further Proved, 39-45, ch. 6. Cf. Owen, Answer, in Works, 13:298.
87. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:174.
88. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:233-34; Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:179.
89. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:234.
90. Ibid., 245.
91. Ibid., 246.
92. Ibid., 262.
93. Ibid., 313-19.
94. Owen, Of Schism, in Work, 13:179-80.
95. Ibid., 180.
96. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:333.
97. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:181.
98. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:206.
99. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:313-14. Cf. ibid., ch. 7; Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:189.
100. Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658), Article 6. Cf. Nuttall, Visible Saints, 65.
101. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:189.
102. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:214; cf. 319; Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:201.
103. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:192.
104. Lloyd-Jones, ‘John Owen on Schism,” 66.
105. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:318. Cf. Thomas Goodwin’s grudging acceptance of occasional communion, Of the Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin (12 vols.; Edinburgh: Nichol, 1861-1866), 11:308.
106. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 149-61. Cf. Cawdrey Independence, 137.
107. Stillingfleet, Mischief of Separation, 22-24.
108. Ibid., 25.
109. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 292.
110. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:211. Cf. Nuttall, Visible Saints, 62-63.
111. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:348-61; Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:328-29.
112. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:351.
113. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 309.
114. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:361. Cf. Calvin, Institutes, 4.3.11-15; The Second Helvetic Confession 18.
115. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:336.
116. Stillingfleet, Mischief of Separation, epistle dedication.
117. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:306-7.
118. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, ii.
119. Owen, Of Schism, in Works, 13:95.
120. Cawdrey, Independencie, 20-21; Cawdrey, Independency Further Proved, 1-8.
121. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:327.
122. Lloyd-Jones, ‘John Owen on Schism,” 63-64. See also Baker, “Church, State, and Toleration,” for a discussion of Owen and tolerance.
123. Owen, Inquiry, in Works, 15:377.
124. John Owen, The Duty of Pastor and People Distinguished (1645), in Works, 13:2-49.
125. Cawdrey Independence, 217-49; Cawdrey Independency Further Proved, 44-59.
126. Owen, Answer, in Works, 13:293.
127. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:222-23.
128. Owen, Answer, in Works, 13:294-95.
129. Cf. Lloyd-Jones, ‘John Owen on Schism,” 62-63.
130. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:258.
131. Peter Toon, God’s Statesman (Exeter: Paternoster, 1971), 135.
132. Peter Toon, The Correspondence of John Owen (Cambridge: Clarke, 1970), 136-45. See the discussion of the meeting between the two in Toon, God’s Statesman, 135-36; and Owen’s concept of tolerance in Baker, “Church, State, and Toleration.”
133. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:304.
134. Stillingfleet, Mischief of Separation, epistle dedication.
135. Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, xlv.
136. Ibid., lix.
137. Owen, A Brief Vindication, in Works, 13:307.
138. Editor’s prefatory note to True Nature of Schism, by Owen, in Works, 13:208.
139. Cawdrey, Independencie, 2, 22, and especially ch. 6, “Independency is Donatism.”
140. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:214; cf. 218.
141. Cawdrey, Independency Further Proved, 16-20, 36.
142. Owen, True Nature of Schism, in Works, 13:226; cf. 217.
143. Ibid., 275.
144. Cawdrey, Independency Further Proved, 1-7.
145. Owen, Answer, in Works, 13:280, though he does then go on to reply again to Cawdrey!