The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 285

heresies o.nd schisms was distinctly foretold by St. Paul himself (1 Cor. xi. 19 ; Acts :xx. 29, 80). But if they are inevitable, because of the frailty of our nature and the hardnesss of our hearts, they are none the less sinful, and it is none the less our duty to strive and to witness against them. If God did not suffer that first great schism to pass unreproved, can we do better, or do less, than follow His example? It may be said that we cannot always distinguish between heresy and orthodoxy -that we "call our doxy orthodoxy, and other people's doxy heterodoxy," and this is quite true. But individual opinion is one thing and the teaching of the Church another. H11,s the Church, then, no teaching office? Is she or ia she not " the pillar and ground of the truth" ? Has she or has she not the promise of our Lord's guidance and illumination? (Matt. xviii. 17, 18; xxviii. 20.) Or can the Church universal err? (Matt. xvi.18.) Is her" Quod semper, quod ubique," &c., no test of truth? It is not for the private Christian to claim any infallibility, but it is for the Church to say what is in and what is against her depositum fidei. And furthermore it is her duty, in her synods and by her officers, to protest against all corruptions of the faith. "A man that is a heretic . . . reject," Titus iii. 10; cf. eh. i. 9-11; 1 Tim. vi. 8-5 (" From such withdraw thyself''); Rom. xvi. 17; Matt. xviii. 17; 8 John 9, 10; Gal. i. 8; ii. 11. The Christian verity is not less dear b God than was the teaching of Moses. The preacher is as much bound to preserve the faith whole and undefiled as was the prophet. And it is idle to say, as it sometimes is said, that mere protests are worse than useless. They may not avert a schism-this protest did not-but they may have their use nevertheless, as this had. Or if they are entirely futile as regards others, they are not forgotten of God. Besides, who shall say that success or non-success is to alter the standard of Christian duty? It is surely something to be able to ~ay, whatever the issue, Liberavi animann meam. It is to be remembered that God knew beforeh11,nd that this His protest, though enforced by signs and wonders, would be comparatively unavailing. 2. That certain crimes against morality and religion are still to be visited by EXCOMMUNICATION. Not the excommunication of bell and book and candle-that finds no place in Holy Scripture-but social excommunication such as that described to us in this history. Indeed, there is also an ecclesiastical excommunication which must sometimes be wielded. There are persons with whom we have no right to eat and to drink at the Table of om· Blessed Lord-persons who must be repelled at any cost from Holy Communion, lest we should indirectly make ourselves "par- takers o other men's sins" (1 Tim. v. 22). When John Wesley once proposed to give a note of admission to the Lord's Table to a man of dubious character, Henry Moore, one of his preachers, bluntly said that if that man were admitted he should refuse to attend. "Sir," said Wesley," I should attend even if the devil came to Holy Communion." "So should I," was the answer; "but not if John Wesley gave him a note of admission." For it is obvious that the Eucharist, the closest rite of fellowship-the rite which makes and proclaims us members one of another (Rom. xii. 4, 5)-if knowingly administered to the "notorious evil-liver," is a virtual COI;doning of bis sin; it is equivalent to bidding him God speed (2 John 10, 11), and so it makes the Chm·ch "partaker of his evil deeds." "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Cor. v. 18). But our history points rather to social than ecclesiastical interdict. And it must be distinctly understood that t~e ~efusal to eat and drink with notorious and incorrigible evil-livers is a part of Chnstian duty (see 1 Cor. v. 9-11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 14, 16; Matt. xviii. 17). We are not permitted to know them and to treat them like other men. Tile story of St. John's hurriedly leaving the bath because of the presence thero of the heretic Cerinthus, is one_ for which the so-called tolerance of the age can only afford 0, contemptuous smile; but the age is often wiser in its own conceit than Christ and His apostles. Only let us remember, if we must treat any as heathens and pub- licans, how Christ treated the penitent publicans (et Luke xv. 1, 2); and then let us not shrink from discharging this puinful duty both to our country, our Church, and our God. Among the secondary lessons of our story are these : 1. That right shall triumph in the long run. The schism throve for 250 years, 288 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [oH. xm. 1-10.