Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ARTICLE V.-WHAT MAKES A HERETIC?

A HERETIC having been taken for all that is odious, vile, and heathenish, and deemed worthy of excommunication, exile, flames, and eternal damnation, and his body, even, declared to be unfit to rest in an orthodox church-yard, it is meet to inquire what makes a heretic? What gives him his title? What works his attainder? By what marks and signs shall his character be known?

To the general reader this subject may lack in interest; but those who hunt for heresy will welcome any breeze which brings them scent of game.

That a task like this is far from easy was seen by the great Augustine in whose opinion it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to determine, in a single definition, what makes a heretic. With whom agrees Lardner: that "it is not easy to show, by any exact definition, what is heresy, or, who is a heretic." However, we may be able to reach, by degrees, what is not to be comprehended in any single definition.

This is, indeed, the task; to traverse a region and run a line where the boundary is indefinite; to pick the way in places where by-paths cross each other in every direction; to show the false amid mutually exclusive sects and ever-shifting dogmas; and to convict on some high and sure authority where all assume to be sound in the faith.

The task becomes the more difficult, also, because orthodoxy and heresy shade into each other by such imperceptible de grees, that one may slip from one to the other and escape detection. For, a heretic has not gone over to positive unbelief. If he is not sound in the faith he is less than an infidel. He may be poisoned with error, but does not absolutely reject the truth. He may elect and eliminate, but still he has his creed which is based on Scripture.

Moreover, by profession, he is not a heretic. He interprets the Bible according to rules of reason, and gives it a natural

and fair construction. He only rejects what is inconclusive and absurd, as held by the so-called orthodox. Indeed, he convicts them of heresy and takes to himself the orthodox title. He accuses his accusers, and, reprobated, reprobates them. Anathematized, he hurls back anathemas, and thunders against his enemies with more terrible reverberations. Cyril flames against Nestorius, and Nestorius against Cyril. "Give me a country purged of all heretics, and in exchange for it, I will give you heaven;" and back comes the fulmination, that "Nestorius is a heretic worse than Cain, or the Sodomites." Thus, each repels the idea of heresy, and is surprised, indignant, disgusted, even, at the intolerance and narrowness of the opposite party.

A heretic, says the Papist, is one who denies the infallibility of the Pope. A heretic, says the Protestant, is one who affirms it. A heretic, says the Socinian, is one who holds to the Trinity of persons, whether Papist or Protestant; and these mutual charges and professions of orthodoxy is what involves the subject. Would any confess to heresy, that ends the discussion. But how convict one of what he denies; and when he claims to be orthodox, what degree of error and what form of reasoning makes him a heretic ?

A heretic, originally a chooser, sectarist, or partisan, and such in no bad sense, is since taken to be a corrupter of the faith; one who combines with it arbitrary human opinions; one who deviates, in some respect, from the standard of orthodoxy.

But here the question is thrust upon us, what is that standard, and on whose authority? For, to judge of heresy, we must be guided by some criterion which shall determine when opinion, either individual or collective, departs from the meaning of Scripture. We must rise to some uniform principle, or law, which shall be an absolute norm for all ages of the churchthe object of authority being, of course, not to force, but to guide; not to impose arbitrary limits to opinions, but to test and correct them.

Here we have nothing to say as to the sources of religious knowledge. That is a separate question; and, we assume with every Protestant, that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith

and practice. We assume, moreover, their infallibility. The question, here, is as to the correctness of that which is drawn from Scripture, which is embodied and accepted in articles of faith, or otherwise, expressed and believed, and as to that criterion which, as centering in the highest authority, is the ultimate standard by which to judge of heresy.

We are the more careful to notice this, because the disposition is to make ourselves the law by which to judge of others. In every age the cry of opposing sects has been: "We are orthodox; we are orthodox. We believe in the genuine doctrines of Scripture, and he is a heretic who dissents from us." But orthodoxy can rest on no such authority as this. For some must be wrong, and what is assumed by one will be assumed by all; and as a consequence, the heretics will intrench themselves behind a position from which the orthodox can never dislodge them.

It is one thing to say we believe in the genuine doctrines of Scripture; another to prove that belief to be genuine. Pride of opinion will lead us to assert our orthodoxy with zeal and vehemence; but must this assertion be taken for granted? May we not, like the courts, demand more impartial testimony? The fact that orthodoxy has been the refuge of so many lies; that under that profession every doctrine of Scripture has been disputed or denied; and that even the Church infallible has been the mother of manifold errors and heresies, should make us cautious in asserting a claim which proves nothing for us and which may give great advantage to others.

No church will take the testimony of persons suspected of heresy to their soundness of faith. They may not question their sincerity, but they do not regard their testimony as sufficient, and especially as disinterested evidence; and for the same reason, the heretics will question theirs; and, whether justly or not, will set as much by their own opinion.

We may say, then, by way of negation, that the ultimate standard by which to judge of heresy cannot rest on the authority of an individual. This is to insinuate no doubts as to the right of private judgment. As the Bible appeals to individual reason, so we believe in the general trustworthiness

of the mental faculties, and that each one may, by his integrity, the purity of his will, and the measure of grace imparted, arrive at its essential truth. But the conclusion of such an one can never be a final test for others, and especially for the church universal. For, his authority, other things being equal, is only equal to that of others, and he was always liable to miss or pervert the truth. As an individual, he was not secure against something peculiar to himself, or peculiar to the time, which might warp his judgment. And what he draws from Scripture may be rather an expression of his private opinion, than its genuine meaning.

Moreover, no true champion of orthodoxy, however confident of the soundness of his views, and however orthodox, makes authority to rest in himself. He appeals to Scripture, as of right he may, and holds himself competent to apprehend its essential meaning; and his opinions must carry weight, in proportion to his piety, ability, and learning; but he ever appeals to some higher authority, by which to test his belief, and by which his conclusions are confirmed.

We may say, still further, that the ultimate standard by which to judge of heresy cannot rest on the authority of a church. We grant that, of reason, it assumes to be a better judge of the meaning of Scripture than an individual. It is composed of numbers; it is supposed to embrace more piety and learning; its life is more extended; and as able to compare and correct its opinions, and likelier to be free from that bias and narrowness which may influence private judgment, so is it naturally entitled to greater weight.

But a church, considered as a section or branch of christendom, is not supreme. Though able to judge of the truth of Scripture, it is often warped by interest, and the prevailing notions of the time. It is rarely superior to error, or party prejudice; and there is nothing in numbers which may secure it from the worst corruption. We may even presume it orthodox, but it is not enough to assert it on its own authority; and for the same reason that it affirms its orthodoxy, and proceeds to judge of heresy from that standard, a heretical church will do the same.

Doubtless, every church must have its formulas, or articles of faith by which to test its members; but it should be able to appeal to some higher standard, by which to confirm the correctness of its creed, and on which it reposes, as final authority.

But what shall be said of the Catholic Church, which assumed its title in opposition to the heritical sects, and which has always taken upon itself to judge of heresy? To what shall that church appeal which has embraced the whole of christendom; which has ruled with unlimited sway; and which is now the most extensive and powerful organization in the Christian world.

To this we reply, that we want some evidence that the Romish church is infallible; and that it has never misjudged, or worse, has never seen fit to gloss and to corrupt the Scriptures, to suit its purpose. Wherein was it so free from error and prejudice, and so above the incentives to wealth and power, that it had no disposition to mistake or falsify their meaning? But we have no such evidence in reason, still less in fact.

It is to be remembered, moreover, that the Romish Church resolved itself into an ecclesiastical oligarchy culminating in the Pope, which thought and spoke for the multitude. In this case then, numbers signify nothing, because the mass are held in stolid ignorance. They are not allowed to judge of Scrip ture, and their authority, so far as orthodoxy is concerned, must go for nothing, because they had no opinion. What they be lieve is simply an expression of arbitrary and priestly will, which if possible, would control the thought and conscience of all mankind.

Had the doctrines and dogmas of the Romish Church been arrived at by the church as a whole; had they been the result of free investigation and interpretation of Scripture, on the part of all, the Church would carry with it a mighty authority with all thinking minds. But when we find this vast organization centering in a priestly caste which is the mouth-piece of the whole; which presumes to dole out Scripture to suit its convenience; and which is responsible to none save an irre

« AnteriorContinuar »