294

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE APOSTLE’S DIRECTIONS RESPECTING THE TREATMENT OF HERETICAL PERSONS.

It is in connexion with this instruction respecting the treatment of heretical persons that we have some of the earliest testimonies to the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus. Thus Irenæus about A.D. 180 writes: “But as many as fall away from” (ἀφίστανται, 1 Tim. iv. 1) “the Church and give heed to these old wives’ fables” (γραώδεσι μύθοις, 1 Tim. iv. 7), “are truly self-condemned” (αὐτοκατάκριτοι, Tit. iii. 1): “whom Paul charges us after a first and second admonition to refuse” (Adv. Hær., I. xvi. 3). It will be observed that in this passage Irenæus makes an obvious allusion to the First Epistle to Timothy, and then quotes the very words of our text, attributing them expressly to St. Paul. And about ten or twelve years later, Tertullian, after commenting on St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. xi. 19), continues as follows: “But no more about that, seeing that it is the same Paul 295 who elsewhere also in writing to the Galatians reckons heresies among sins of the flesh (Gal. v. 20), and who intimates to Titus that a man who is heretical must after a first⁸⁴⁸⁴   It is worth noting that Tertullian, with several other Latin writers, omits the second admonition: hominem hæreticum post primam correptionem recusandum. Similarly Cyprian: hæreticum hominem post unam correptionem devita (Test., III. 78). admonition be refused, because he that is such is perverted and sinneth as being self-condemned. But in almost every Epistle, when insisting on the duty of avoiding false doctrines, he censures heresies of which the practical results are false doctrines, called in Greek heresies, with reference to the choice which a man exercises, whether in instituting or in adopting them. For this reason he says that the heretical person is also self-condemned, because he has chosen for himself that in which he is condemned. We, however, may not allow ourselves anything after our own will; nor yet choose what any one has introduced of his own will. The Apostles of the Lord are our authorities: and even they did not choose to introduce anything of their own will, but faithfully consigned to the nations the instruction which they received from Christ. And so, even if an angel from heaven were to preach any other gospel, he would be called accursed by us” (De Præs. Hær., vi). In this passage, which contains a valuable comment on the meaning of the word “heresy,” it will be noticed that Tertullian not only quotes the text before us as coming from the Epistle to Titus, but, like Irenæus, his earlier contemporary, says expressly that the words are those of St. Paul. Thus, from both sides of the Mediterranean, men who had very large opportunities of knowing what books were accepted as Apostolic and what not, attribute 296 our Epistle without hesitation to St. Paul. And in both cases this is done in treatises directed against heretics, who might be expected to reply with very telling effect, if it could be shown that what was quoted against them as the writing of an Apostle was of quite doubtful origin and authority.

But the testimony which these passages bear to the authenticity of this Epistle is not the main reason for their being quoted here. Their interest for us now consists in the light which they throw upon the history of the word “heresy,” and upon the attitude of the primitive Church towards heretics.

“Heresy,” as Tertullian points out, is a word of Greek origin, and the idea which lies at the root of it is choice.⁸⁵⁸⁵   αἵρεσις, from αἱρεῖν, αἱρεῖσθαι, “to choose”: not from hærere, “to stick fast,” as has been ignorantly asserted. Choosing for oneself what pleases oneself, independently of other considerations;—that is the fundamental notion on which later meanings of the term are based. Thus in the Septuagint it is used of a free-will offering, as distinct from what a man is bound to offer (Lev. xxii. 18; comp. 1 Macc. viii. 30). Then comes the notion of choice in reference to matters of opinion, without, however, necessarily implying that the chosen opinion is a bad one. And in this sense it is used quite as often for the party or school of thought which holds the particular opinion as for the body of opinion which is held. In this sense it is several times used in the Acts of the Apostles; as “the sect of the Sadducees” (v. 17), “the sect of the Pharisees” (xv. 5; xxvi. 5): and in this way Christianity itself was spoken of as a “heresy” or “sect”; that is, a party with chosen opinions (xxiv. 5, 14; xxviii. 22). And in profane literature we find Diogenes Laertius in 297 the second or third century speaking of ten “heresies” or schools in moral philosophy (i. 19). But it will be seen from the passages in the Acts that the word is already acquiring somewhat of a bad meaning; and indeed this was almost inevitable, unless the original signification was entirely abandoned. In all spheres of thought and action, and especially in matters of belief, a tendency to choose for oneself, and to pursue one’s own way independently, almost of necessity leads to separation from others, to divisions and factions. And factions in the Church readily widen into schisms and harden into heresies.

Outside the Acts of the Apostles the word heresy is found in the New Testament only in three passages: 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20; and 2 Pet. ii. 1. In the last of these it is used of the erroneous opinions themselves; in the other two the parties who hold them may be indicated. But in all cases the word is used of divisions inside the Church, not of separations from it or of positions antagonistic to it. Thus in 2 Pet. ii. 1 we have the prophecy that “there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them.” Here the false teachers are evidently inside the Church, corrupting its members; not outside, inducing its members to leave it. For the prophecy continues: “And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of.” They could not cause “the way of the truth to be evil spoken of,” if they were complete outsiders, professing to have no connexion with it. In Gal. v. 20 “heresies” are among “the works of the flesh” against which St. Paul warns his fickle converts, and “heresies” are there coupled with “factions” and “divisions.” In 298 1 Cor. xi. 19 the Apostle gives as a reason for believing the report that there are divisions in the Church of Corinth the fact that (man’s tendency to differ being what it is) divisions are inevitable, and have their use, for in this way those which are approved among Christians are made manifest. It is possible in both these passages to understand St. Paul as meaning the “self-chosen views,” as in the passage in 2 Pet., rather than the schools or parties which have adopted the views. But this is not of much moment. The important thing to notice is, that in all three cases the “heresies” have caused or are tending to cause splits inside the Church: they do not indicate hostile positions outside it. This use of the word is analogous to that in the Acts of the Apostles, where it represents the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the Christian Church itself, as parties or schools inside Judaism, not as revolts against it. We shall be seriously misled, if we allow the later meaning of “heresy,” with all its medieval associations, to colour our interpretation of the term as we find it in the New Testament.

Another important thing to remember in reference to the strong language which St. Paul and other writers in the New Testament use with regard to “heresies” and erroneous doctrine, and the still stronger language used by early Christian writers in commenting on these texts, is the downright wickedness of a good many of the “self-chosen views” which had begun to appear in the Church in the first century, and which became rampant during the second. The peril, not only to faith, but to morals, was immense, and it extended to the very foundations of both. When Christians were told that there were two Creators, of whom one was good and one was 299 evil; that the Incarnation was an impossibility; that man’s body was so vile that it was a duty to abuse it; that his spirit was so pure that it was impossible to defile it; that to acquire knowledge through crime was estimable, for knowledge was good, and crime was of no moral significance to the enlightened;—then it was necessary to speak out, and tell men in plain terms what the persons who were inculcating such views were really doing, and what strong measures would be necessary, if they persisted in such teaching.

Unless we keep a firm grasp upon these two facts;—(1) the difference between the meaning of the word “heresy” as we find it in the New Testament and its usual meaning at the present time; and (2) the monstrous character of some of the views which many persons in the first century, and many more in the second, claimed to hold as part and parcel of the Christian religion;—we shall be liable to go grievously astray in drawing conclusions as to our own practice from what is said on the subject in Scripture.

“Woe unto the world,” said our blessed Lord, “because of occasions of stumbling! For it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh” (Matt. xviii. 7). Human nature being what it is, it is morally impossible that no one should ever lead another into sin. But that fact does not destroy the responsibility of the individual who leads his fellows into sin. St. Paul takes up the principle thus laid down by Christ and applies it in a particular sphere. He tells his Corinthian converts that “there must be heresies” among them, and that they serve the good purpose 300 of sifting the chaff from the wheat. Wherever the light comes, it provokes opposition; there is at once antagonism between light and darkness. This is as true in the sphere of faith and morals as in that of the material world. Sooner or later, and generally sooner rather than later, truth and innocence are met and opposed by falsehood and sin; and it is falsehood, wilfully maintained in opposition to revealed and generally held truth, that constitutes the essence of heresy. There are many false opinions outside what God has revealed to mankind, outside the scope of the Gospel. However serious these may be, they are not heresies. A man may be fatally at fault in matters of belief; but, unless in some sense he accepts Christianity as true, he is no heretic. As Tertullian says, “In all cases truth precedes its copy; after the reality the likeness follows” (De Præs. Hær., xxix). That is, heresy, which is the caricature of Christian truth, must be subsequent to it. It is a distortion of the original truth, which some one has arrogantly chosen as preferable to that of which it is the distortion. Error which has not yet come in contact with revelation, and which has had no opportunity of either submitting to it or rebelling against it, is not heretical. The heretical spirit is seen in that cold critical temper, that self-confident and self-willed attitude, which accepts and rejects opinions on principles of its own, quite independently of the principles which are the guaranteed and historical guides of the Church. But it cannot accept or reject what has never been presented to it; nor, until the Christian faith has to some extent been accepted, can the rejection of the remainder of it be accounted heresy. Heresy is “a disease of Christian 301 knowledge.” The disease may have come from without, or may have developed entirely from within; and in the former case the source of the malady may be far older than Christianity itself. But until the noxious elements have entered the Christian organism and claimed a home within the system, it is a misuse of language to term them heretical.

We have not exhausted the teaching of the Apostles respecting this plague of self-assertion and independent teaching, which even in their time began to afflict the infant Church, when we have considered all the passages in which the words “heresy” and “heretical” occur. There are other passages, in which the thing is plainly mentioned, although this name for it is not used. It has been said that “the Apostles, though they claimed disciplinary authority, had evidently no thought of claiming infallibility for any utterances of theirs.”⁸⁶⁸⁶   T. Ll. Davies in a remarkable paper on “The Higher Life,” in the Fortnightly Review, January, 1888. But they certainly treated opposition to their teaching, or deviations from it, as a very serious matter. St. Paul speaks of those who opposed him in the Church of Corinth as “false apostles, deceitful workers” and “ministers of Satan” (2 Cor. xi. 13–15). He speaks of the Galatians as “bewitched” by those who would pervert the Gospel of Christ, and pronounces an anathema on those who should “preach any gospel other than that which he preached” (Gal. i. 7, 8; iii. 1). Of the same class of teachers at Philippi he writes: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision” (iii. 2). He warns the Colossians against any one who may “make spoil of them through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of 302 men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (ii. 8); just as he warned the elders of the Church at Ephesus that after his departure “grievous wolves would enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and that from among themselves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts xx. 29, 30). And in the Pastoral Epistles we have several utterances of the same kind, including the one before us (1 Tim. i. 3–7, 19, 20; iv. 1–3; vi. 3, 4, 20, 21; Tit. i. 10–16; iii. 8–11; 2 Tim. ii. 16–18; iii. 8, 13).

Nor is St. Paul the only writer in the New Testament who feels bound to write in this strain. The same kind of language fills no inconsiderable portion of the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2 Pet. ii.; Jude 8–16). More remarkable still, we find even the Apostle of Love speaking in tones not less severe. The Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia abound in such things (Rev. ii.; iii). In his General Epistle he asks, “Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John ii. 22: comp. ii. 26; iv. 1, 3). In his letter to “the elect lady and her children” he speaks of the “many deceivers” who “confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” And, in a passage not unlike the direction to Titus which we are now considering, he says: “If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.”

The impression which these passages produce on our minds is at least this;—that, whether or no the Apostles were conscious of being protected by the 303 Holy Spirit from teaching anything that was doctrinally false, they were at any rate very stern in their condemnation of those Christians who deliberately contravened what an Apostle had taught. And this sternness is not confined to those who resisted the instructions of Apostles in matters of discipline. It is quite as clearly manifested against those who contradicted Apostolic teaching in matters of faith. The context of the passage before us shows that by “a man that is heretical” is meant one who wilfully takes his own line and thereby causes divisions in doctrine quite as much as one who does so as regards the order and discipline of the Church.

What, then, does St. Paul mean when he directs Titus to “refuse” such a person after once or twice admonishing him? Certainly not that he is to excommunicate him; the passage has nothing to do with formal excommunication. It is possible to maintain that the direction here given may imply excommunication; but it is also possible to maintain that it need not imply anything of the kind; and therefore that such an interpretation substitutes an uncertain inference for what is certainly expressed. The word translated in the R.V. “refuse,” and in the A.V. “reject,” is the same as that which is used in 1 Tim. v. 11 in the text, “Younger widows refuse” (παραιτοῦ). It means, “avoid, shun, excuse yourself from having anything to do with” (comp. Heb. xii. 25). It is also used of things as well as of persons, and in much the same sense: “Refuse profane and old wives’ fables” (1 Tim. iv. 7), and “Foolish and ignorant questions refuse” (2 Tim. ii. 23). The meaning, then, here seems to be that, after a few attempts to induce the heretical person to desist from his perverse and self-willed conduct, Titus is to waste 304 no more time on him, because now he knows that his efforts will be useless. At first he did not know this; but after having failed once or twice, he will see that it is vain to repeat what produces no effect. The man’s self-will is incorrigible; and not only that, but inexcusable; for he stands self-condemned. He deliberately chose what was opposed to the received teaching; and he deliberately persists in it after its erroneous character has been pointed out to him. He “is perverted, and sinneth”: that is, he not only has sinned, but goes on sinning: he continues in his sin, in spite of entreaty, exhortation, and reproof.

In what way are the directions here given to Titus to be used for our own guidance at the present time? Certain limitations as to their application have been already pointed out. They do not apply to persons who have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves, outside the Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their self-chosen views are part and parcel of the Gospel, and who claim to hold and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church. Secondly, they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to first principles; not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail. And in determining this second point much caution will be needed; especially when inferences are drawn from a man’s teaching. We should be on our guard with regard to assertions that a particular teacher virtually denies the Divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the personality of God. But when both these points are quite clear, that the person contradicts some of the primary truths of the Gospel, and that he claims to do so as a Christian, what is a minister to do to such a member of his flock? He is to make one or two efforts 305 to reclaim him, and then to have as little to do with him as possible.

In all such cases there are three sets of persons to be considered:—the heretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the Church at large. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with him will be least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church, and most beneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the guiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to one person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more harm than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is not only consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without such hatred. What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will friendliness confirm him in his error? Would he be more impressed by severity? Is intercourse with him likely to lead to our being led astray? Will it increase his influence and his opportunities of doing harm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy in other people, first for him, and then for his teaching? It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule that would cover all cases; and while we remember the stern instructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St. John to the “elect lady,” let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ treated publicans and sinners.

In our own day there is danger of mistaking lazy or weak indifferentism for Christian charity. It is a convenient doctrine that the beliefs of our fellow-Christians are no concern of ours, even when they try to propagate what contradicts the creed. And, while emphasis is laid upon the responsibility of accepting articles of faith, it is assumed that there is little or no responsibility in refusing to accept, or in teaching 306 others to refuse also. To plead for tenderness, where severity is needed, is not charity, but Laodicean lukewarmness; and mistaken tenderness may easily end in making us “partakers in evil works.” To be severe, when severity is imperatively called for, is not only charity to the offenders, it “is also charity towards all men besides. It is charity towards the ignorant as carrying instruction along with it; charity towards the unwary, as giving them warning to stand off from infection; charity towards the confirmed Christians, as encouraging them still more, and preserving them from insults; charity towards the whole Church, as supporting both their unity and purity; charity towards all mankind, towards them that are without, as it is recommending pure religion to them in the most advantageous light, obviating their most plausible calumnies, and giving them less occasion to blaspheme.”⁸⁷⁸⁷   Waterland, The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity IV. ii. 2; Works, vol. v. p. 96. Oxford, 1823.