SCHISM
(From Foxe’s Book of Martyrs)
What were the divisions or
schisms in the Church in
The first passage quoted (1
Cor. 1: 10) seems at first sight to indicate such a breach of that
visible unity in the outward order settled in their assembly as results from
some jarring in their religious opinions. It is unquestionable that there cannot be
Christian union or Christian love where there is not Christian truth in its
essential or fundamental principles. But
the Apostle in his letter to the Corinthians (chap.
7: 19), (8: 8), allows the greatest
latitude consistent with the faithful maintenance of these. (See also Rom. 14:
4; Phil. 3: 15-16). Besides, it is manifest that there was no breach in
their external unity. When they came
together the divisions or schisms took place (chap.
11: 18). The differences among them were in regard to certain chiefs or leaders
under whom the people severally ranked themselves, and thus without making
separate communions, formed distinctions among themselves to the manifest
prejudice of the common bond of love.
‘Now, this I say, that every one of you saith, I
am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.’ What was that gave rise to such distinctions
in the
It is evident, however, that these petty
differences, as we should account them, had already produced consequences
unfriendly to the spirit of the Gospel, for it is in this point of view solely
that the Apostle considers them, and not as having an immediate bad influence
on its doctrine. Thus, resuming the
subject, he says. ‘Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying,
and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another
I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal?’ (chap.
3: 3-4). Thus it is
incontrovertible, in the first place, that the accusation imports that the
Corinthians by their conduct had given a wound to love, and not that they had
made any deviation from the faith; and, in the second place, that in the
apostolical acceptation of the word, men may be schismatics, or guilty of
schism, by such an alienation of affection from their brethren as violates the
internal union subsisting in the hearts of Christians, though there be neither
error in doctrine nor separation from communion, and, consequently, no
violation of external unity in religious observances and worship.
The Scriptural principle we are expounding, namely,
that there may be schism where there is no breach of external unity, strikes at
the root of every theory which, like the Roman, makes the unity of the church
to depend on anything external. Every
such theory partakes of the essentially un-Christian vice of attaching too much
importance to what is outward. The
apostolic method was to account everything of an outward or ritual character as
subordinate to what was moral and spiritual (1 Cor.
13: 1-3). Those who un-Christianise
all who possess not the benefits of a supposed or real apostolic succession,
account everything moral or spiritual as secondary to what is ritual with Paul,
a departure from essential truth incurred the highest displeasure; a breach of
love was schism. With the patrons of a
via media between Rome and Protestantism, essential error may be tolerated, and
its poison become food through the virtues of a falsely so-called apostolical
order; internal hatred and war may reign - there is no schism till the bonds of
that order are broken.
The converse of the principle we have been
illustrating, is likewise true and obvious, that there may be separation without
schism. Separation may be the result of
the legitimate exercise of Church discipline: and the Church which excludes a
party from its communion, for a Scriptural reason, and in a Christian spirit,
is not guilty of schism in its act. With
the party excluded the separation is of course involuntary; and, therefore, by
whatever previous sins he may have exposed himself to such treatment, his
separation, so far as he is concerned, possesses no moral character.
There is another situation in which voluntary
separation may take place without schism:- a Church may have departed so far
from the faith, or cherish within it such an admixture of un-Christian men, as
to render voluntary separation an act of obedience to God. Is this doubted? Then, what means the Scripture, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath
light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6: 14).
Or what means the direction given by
Paul to the Thessalonians? – “Now we command you,
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves
from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which
he received of us” (2 Thes. 3: 6). Here the churches are commanded to exclude the
“disorderly,” those who lived in disobedience to the Saviour’s laws, and to do
it not in wrath but in love, still to account the excluded as brethren, and to
admonish them as such for their restoration. But if the influence of the disorderly
themselves so preponderate, or if the views of duty in regard to the matter on
the part of the orderly be so defective, that this command is not obeyed, how
are those to act who know the will of Christ and are desirous to do it? The Bible is ready with its answer:- “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean. thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father
unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”
(2 Cor. 6: 17-18). “Come out of her, My
people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
plagues”. (Rev. 18: 4). Will it be schism to obey these precepts? If it will, our Lord has commanded us to
commit it. But no, we break no bond of
love in thus acting. We come out from
those whom we do not love as brethren, because we do not esteem them as such;
and if we leave Christian brethren behind us, we need not cease to love them,
because we cease to join with them in what we account wrong.
-------