post-apostolic Church, if " a man admitted a part, or even the whole of Christianity, and added to it some- thing of his own, or if he rejected the whole of it, he was equally designated as a heretic. Thus, by degrees, it came to be restricted to those who proi'essed Chris- tianit}', but professed it erroneously ; and in later times, tlie doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the Council of Nice, was almost the onl}' test which decided the or- thodoxy or the lieresy of a Christian. Differences upon minor points were then described by the milder term of schism; and the distinction seems to have been made, that unity of faith might be maintauied, though schism existed ; but if the unity of faith was violated, the vio- lator of it was a heretic." In general, in the early Church, all who did not hold what was called the Cath- olic faith (the orthodox') were called heretics. At a very early period the notion of wilful and immoral perversity began to be attached to heresy, and thus we may account for the severe and violent language used against here- tics. "Charges, indeed, or insinuations of the grossest impurities are sometimes thrown out by the orthodox Avriters against the early heretics ; but we are bomid to receive them with great caution, because the answers which may have been given to them are lost, and be- cause they are not generally justified by any authentic records which we possess respecting the lives of those heretics. The truth appears to be this, that some fla- grant immoralities were notoriously perpetrated by some of the wildest among their sects, and that these have given coloring to the charges which have been throwTi upon them too indiscriminately. But, whatsoever un- certainty may rest on this inquirj', it cannot be disputed, first, that the apostolical fathers, following the footsteps of the apostles themselves, regarded with great jealousy the birth and growth of erroneous opinions ; and next, that they did not authorize, either by instruction or ex- ample, any severity on the jwrsons of those in error. They opposed it by their reasoning and their eloquence, and they avoided its contagion by removing from their communion those who persisted in it ; but they were also mindful that within these limits was confined the power which the Church received from the apostles who founded it over the spiritual disobedience of its mem- bers" (Waddington, History of the. Church, ch. v, p. 59). II. Relations of Heresy to the Church and to Doctrine. — " Heresies, like sin, all spring from the natiu-al man ; but they first make their appearance in opposition to the revealed truth, and thus presuppose its existence, as the fall of Adam implies a previous state of innocence. There are religious errors, indeed, to any extent out of Christianity, but no heresies in the theological sense. These errors become heresies only when they come into contact, at least outwardly, with revealed truth and with the life of the Church. They consist essentially in the conscious or unconscious reaction of unsubdued Juda- ism or heathenism against the new creation of the Gos- pel. Heresy is the distortion or caricature of the orig- inal Christian truth. But as God in his wonderful wis- dom can bring good out of all evil, and has more than compensated for the loss of the first Adam by the resiu-- rection of the second, so must all heresies in the end only condemn themselves, and serve the more fully to establish the truth. The New-Testament Scriptures themselves are in a great measure the result of a firm resistance to the distortions and corruptions to which the Christian religion was exposed from the first. Nay, we may say that every dogma of the Chiu-ch, every doc- trine fixed by her symbols, is a victory over a corre- sponding error, and in a certain sense owes to the error, not, indeed, its substance, which comes from God, but assuredly its logical completeness and scientific form. Heresies, therefore, belong to the process by which the Christian truth, received in simple faith, becomes clear- ly defined as an object of knowledge. They are the negative occasions, the challenges, for the Church to de- fend her \'iews of truth, and to set them forth in com- plete scientific form" (SchafF, Apostolic Church, § 165).
Heresy and Schism. — " Near akin to heresy is the idea of schism or Church division, which, however, primarily means a separation from the government and disci] iline of the Church, and does not necessarily include dciiart- ure from her orthodoxy. , . Thus the Ebioiiitcs. (Iikis- tics, and Arians were heretics; the Montanifls, X(jva- tians, and Donatists, schismatics. By I lie standard (,f the Roman Church, the Greek Church is only schismat- ic, the Protestant both heretical and schismatic. Of course, in different branches of the Church . . there are different views of heresy and truth, heterodoxy and or- thodoxj', and likewise of schism and sect" (Schaff, A post. Church, § 1G5). " Heresy, as distinguished from schism, consists in the adoption of opinions and practices con- trary to the articles and practices of any particidar church, whereas schism is secession from that church, the renouncing allegiance to its government, or forming parties within it ; for surely Paid (in 1 Cor. and else- where) censures men as causing divisions Avho did not openly renounce allegiance. Neither schism run- her- esy, then, is properly an offence against the Church uni- versal, but against some particular Church, and by its own members. On the same principle, no Chm-ch can be properly called either heretic or schismatic ; for cluircli- es, being independent establishments, may indeed con- sult each other, but if they cannot agree, the guilt of that Church which is in error is neither schism nor hcr- esj^, but corrupt faith or bigoted narrowness. Accord- ingly, our Reformers, whilst they characterize the Rom- ish Church as one that has erred, liave very properly avoided the misapplication of the terms ' schismatic' and ' heretic' to it. Nevertheless, if a Church has been formed by the secession of members from another Church, on disagreement of principles, each seceder is both a schismatic and a heretic because of his former connec- tion; but the crime does not attach to the Church so formed, 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. He who is convmced that his Church is essen- tially in error is bound to secede ; but, like the circum- 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; but with respect to distinct churches, as they can form alliances, so thej' can secede from this alliance without being giulty of aiiy crime. So far from the separation between the Romish and Protestant churches having anything of the character of schism or heresy in it, the Church of England (sup- posing the Church of Rome not to have needed any re- form) would have been justified in rr muncing its asso- ciation with it simply on the ground of expediency" (Hinds, Early Christian Church).