CHAPTER X. CHRISTIAN UNITY. SCHISM and Heresy, considered merely as ecclesiastical crimes, may be illustrated by the analogous case of political crimes. The schismatic renounces his allegiance to the ecclesiastical government under which he has been living; the heretic adopts practices and opinions contrary to its laws. The schismatic therefore is, as it were, in rebellion against his Church; the heretic, a violater of its laws, 118 Here, however, the analogy ceases. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. Accordingly, while the rightful punishment of the rebel who is found arrayed against his country and its government is inflicted by the society injured; the schismatic, who is similarly opposed to his Church, is reserved for a sentence hereafter,—a sentence either of acquittal or condemnation, as the motives which gave rise to the rebellious act shall be found sufficient or otherwise. The infallibility of the Church's rulers in the apostolic age might Nature of be supposed sufficient to have preserved unanimity throughout the this Unity. Christian World. But this was by no means the case. Previous, however, to the notice of those who have been charged with schism or heresy, it may be requisite to make some remarks on the subject of Christian Unity. Few points have been less satisfactorily discussed than the exact import of this word, nor would it be easy to remove all the difficulty with which the question is encumbered. The following observations however may, it is hoped, tend to clearer views on the subject. When Christian Unity is spoken of in the New Testament, it Unity of generally means the unity of dispensation for the various classes of Dispensaconverts. It is expressive of the great principle, that all were to be 66 tion. one fold under one Shepherd;" that, contrary to the Jewish prejudice, Christianity was to be one and the same, as to all its benefits and privileges, for Jews, devout Gentiles, and idolaters, who embraced it. Hence it is called "the unity of the Spirit," in Eph. iv. 3. opposition to the character of the Jewish dispensation, which was 118 I do not know whether this distinction in the use of the terms schism and heresy obtains generally; and heresy undoubtedly, in its original acceptation, meant a schism or sect. So the term is used in Acts xxiv. 5, 14. But as the two partially allotted, and shaded off, as it were, from native Jew to the proselyte of righteousness, and, in a lower degree still, to the Eph. iv. 3. proselyte of the gate. Hence, also, it is said to be preserved "in the bond of peace;" because the main ground of irritation and enmity on religious matters was the jealousy of the Jews respecting the oneness (vórns) of God's Church. That such is the unity so often recommended, may be proved especially from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; in which he enforces it as a duty of Christians, on the ground that they partake of "one faith, one baptism," &c. which he could not have done, if difference of faith in general or of forms were the departure from the unity intended. Eph. iv. 5. No Church can be cal. Against this unity, then, neither schism nor heresy is necessarily an offence. Nothing, undoubtedly, was so likely to prevent schism as an equality of dispensation, which should leave all classes of converts, in every age or country, without room for jealousy and discontent; but neither schism nor heresy is properly an offence against the Church universal, but against some particular church, and by its own members. It is true, that he who is an heretic or schismatic of one church, may be an unfit member for many others, or for all others; and so it is with certain grievous offenders against the laws of any one political society: and we often say of such an one that he is unfit for society. But because a murderer is tolerated neither by the French nor by the English, we do not thence infer that the French and English form one political body. On the same principle, it must be admitted, that no church can Heretical or be properly called either heretic or schismatic. For churches, Schismati- being independent establishments, may indeed consult each other; but, having no one common arbitrator, if they cannot agree, the guilt of that church which is in error is neither schism nor heresy properly, but corrupt faith,—not an ecclesiastical offence, but one between God and the corrupt church. Accordingly, our Reformers, whilst they characterise the Romish Church as one that has erred, have very properly avoided the misapplication of the terms "schismatic, and heretic " to it. TheSeceders such a Nevertheless, if a church has been formed by the secession of forming members from another church, on disagreement of principles, each Church may seceder is both a schismatic and a heretic, because of his former Though not connexion; but the crime does not attach to the Church so formed; be both. so their successors. and accordingly is not entailed on succeeding members who naturally spring up in it. If the schism was founded in error, the guilt of error would always attach to it and its members; but not that of schism or heresy. On the same principle, the present king of Great Britain's claim to the allegiance of his subjects is not affected by the question of William the Conqueror's right to the throne formerly; nor would an American traitor stand excused, who should plead in defence of his treason, that the disunion was unjustifiable, to which the United States owe their independence. Church? Distinct churches may form alliances, such as existed between the famous seven Churches of Asia. But then, a secession from this alliance would of itself be no crime whatever. Thus, supposing the Church of Rome not to have needed any reform, still the Church of England would have been justified in renouncing its association with it, simply on the ground of expediency. But, then, what constitutes a Church? Is the boundary line What is a political or geographical, or what? It is obvious that a mere agreement of faith and practice does not render two bodies of Christians one Church; for the Church of England and the American Episcopalian Church agree, but still are two distinct churches. Much less can it be supposed to depend on a political or geographical boundary; except, indeed, when the church is united with the state, and then the limits of both are by agreement the same. Even the connexion between the Church founded, and that from which it has been planted, does not amount to this; for when Jerusalem sent forth its spiritual colonies, they consulted indeed with the mother Church, and with one another, but each was, from the very first, independent, and a church in itself. before Shall we say, then, that the principle is purely conventional? Every body of men, and every individual, falls, by birth and other circumstances, into some one Christian body; just as he does into some one political or other social body. The Church of England, for instance, if even it were deprived of the advantages which it enjoys in the protection of the state, would be naturally perpetuated as it now is, and every secession from it would be as truly a schism, and every profession opposed to its Articles as truly a heresy. This, however, does not imply that no plea can justify the members Cautions of any church from seceding. He who is convinced that his church necessary is essentially in error, is bound to secede. But, like the circum- Secession. stances which may be supposed to justify the subject of any realm in renouncing his country and withdrawing his allegiance, the plea should be long, and seriously, and conscientiously weighed. Indeed, a cautious and painful self-examination is even more awfully important; because the temptation to the act receives no check, corresponding to that human punishment which menaces the political rebel. Separation or secession may, however, take place, by mutual agreement, and without any difference of faith or practice between the parties. In this case, there would be no question about corruption and error in the one, and heresy and schism in the other; neither would they be joint offenders against Christian unity. As colonies may grow into a greatness, which would make it inconvenient for them to remain dependencies of the parent state, and may separate amicably from it, and to the acknowledged benefit of both; so it may be with respect to a church and its branches, or other causes may render the separation desirable and justifiable. There was no schism, e.g. when the Episcopal Church of the United The separation from the Rome not a States separated from our own. The separation of our Church from that of Rome would, on the same principle of convenience, have been Church of justifiable and right, even had there been no cause for separation in the corruptions and usurpations of the latter. We were, at once, too numerous, and too much disconnected by distance, and other circumstances, from those with whom we were nominally in communion, to form with them one Society—such as a church seems designed to be-under one government. It may be difficult to define the proper extent of a church, and more, no doubt, must depend on national and other differences than on mere numbers; but it is incompatible with the nature and ends of the institution, that a church should spread into an empire, such as the Romish once was, and such as it still asserts on principle. In such a state of things one great safeguard against corruption is removed-the protest of many independent churches against the offending one their immediate protest and their permanent testimony against it. Corruption grows unreproved and unregistered. That evidence, too, for purity of doctrine and practice, which arises from the concurrence of many independent but consenting churches is, in like manner, lost. Other results have followed, no less detrimental to the cause of Christ's kingdom on earth. The impression left by the establishment for centuries of a gigantic ecclesiastical empire, has tended to give undue importance to the machinery of ecclesiastical government, and to all the external appointments of the Church; these being really more prominent and important matters in an imperial church. It has taught men to think more of ecclesiastical polity, as that which is to bind Christians together, and less of the brotherly tie of fellowship, the power of which can only be fully developed in smaller or less complicated associations. In an overgrown church it may exist among the members of its separate congregations as such; or among the members of less regular religious societies and parties as such; but hardly among the members of the Church at large as such. Second Persecution, HERETICS. It is generally admitted, that St. John was banished by the Emperor Domitian; and the sentence makes part of what is called the Second Persecution of the Christians. Nevertheless, it can hardly be classed among the severe trials of the Church. Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, members of the imperial family, are recorded amongst the victims; the former as suffering death, the latter, exile. It is, however, after all doubtful, whether these objects of tyrannical suspicion were charged with their real offences, or whether the imputation of "Atheism" and "Jewish manners may not have been the cloak for gratifying some personal dislike, or allaying some personal dread, which Domitian did not choose to avow. No more were made partners of their persecution than were probably sufficient to give colour to its justice; and were it not that among these the last apostle is numbered, all mention of it might be well omitted. Such as it was, it ceased with the death of the emperor. It At this season, however, the Church began to feel the influence of a more powerful enemy, perhaps, than the sword of persecution. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the attempts of the unconverted Jews to direct the civil powers of the world against Christians were few and feeble. The converted Jews had less spirit, and less show of reason, to contend for the eternal obligation of the Mosaic law on Christians. It was no longer deemed necessary to enforce those restrictions, therefore, on the Jewish and proselyted converts, which before that signal event prudence had suggested. From the Jews, and from the disposition to Judaize Christians, the Church was comparatively secure. In proportion, however, as this relief was obtained, a new evil began to spring up. The unconverted Gentiles were henceforth the chief movers of calumny and accusation. was now palpably the interest of a great body of them to be so. From a portion of the converted Gentiles, too, more than from those who had been Jews, the Gospel was threatened with corruption. It was not now so much an adulterous union between the Mosaic law and the Christian, as between Gentile philosophy and Christian truth, against which the defender of the faith had to contend. And here it might be expected, that at least the Judaizing portion of the Church would have been firm resisters of this most unnatural union, -but they were perhaps the weaker party, and were even more readily seduced than their brethren of Gentile origin. The reason Causes of was this: with the Jews of Alexandria, and, through them, very Heresy. generally with the Jews of all parts, the experiment which was now to be tried on the Christians had been made, and made with eminent success. Long before the establishment of the Eclectic sect in Egypt, the principles on which it was formed had influenced the philosophical speculations at Alexandria; and several tenets of the Greek Wisdom had been admitted into the Oriental schools, and still more of Orientalism into those of the Grecian philosophy. Plato's system, from its fanciful assemblage of ideas, was the most readily identified or amalgamated with the Eastern theory of emanations. But the Peripatetic and Stoic were soon found equally pliant and yielding to the ingenuity of men once practised in the method of harmonizing and reconciling. Both, no less than the Academic, agreed indeed in the fundamental point of theology with the Eastern creed, viz. that the Deity was the soul of the world, or the universe itself. The Epicurean system was the most stubborn, but even this was gradually tortured, until it was made to furnish some evidence to the shifting views of these theorists. Meanwhile, in this rage for philosophic liberality, the ancient and august character of the Mosaic revelation, and the reverence with which it was observed by so large a portion of the inhabitants of Alexandria the Gnostic |