A90276:104
Of schism the true nature of it discovered and considered, with reference to the…Of schisme the true nature of it discovered and considered, with reference to the…
Of schism the true nature of it discovered and considered, with reference to the present differences in religion. / By John Owen D.D.Of schisme the true nature of it discovered and considered, with reference to the present differences in religion. / By John Owen D.D.
Oxford: printed by L.L. for T. Robinson, 1657
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Of one particular Church▪ departing from that communion with another,1 or others, be it what it will, which it ought to ⟨p. 79⟩hold, unless in the departing of some of them, in some things, from the common Faith, which is supposed not to relate to Schism, in the Scripture, we have no example. Diotrephes assuming an Authority over that Church, wherein he was placed, 3 Joh. 9, 10. and for a season hindering the brethren from the performance of the duty incumbent upon them, toward the great Apostle and others, makes the nearest approach to such a division: but yet in such a distance, that it is not at all to our purpose in hand. When I come to consider that communion, that Churches have, or ought to have among themselves, this will be more fully discussed. Neither is this my sense alone, that there is no instance of any such separation as that, which is the matter of our debate, to be found in the Scripture. It is confessed by others differing from me, in and about Church affairs. To leave all ordinary communion in any Church with dislike, where opposition, or offence offers it self, is to separate from such a Church in the Scripture sense; such separation was not in being in the Apostles time, say they, Pap••accom. p. 55. But how they came to know exactly the sense of the Scripture in & about things not mentioned in them, I know not. As I said before, ⟨p. 80⟩were I unwilling, I do not as yet understand how I may be compelled to carry on the notion of Schism any farther: Nor is there need of adding any thing to demonstrate how little the conscience of a godly man, walking peaceably in any particular Church society, is concerned in all the clamorous disputes of this Age about it; being built on false Hypotheses, presumptions, and notions, no other way considerable, but as received by tradition from our Fathers.
Of one particular Church▪ departing from that communion with another,1