Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/770

Rh 734 HE REST I. Reconciliation implies that man has been separated by sin from God, and that God can overcome this separation. All descrip tions of God, of His nature, character, and works, which contradict this fact may give rise to heresies. Thus God cannot overcome the separation if it be impossible for Him to project Himself beyond Himself for salvation. The nature of the Godhead may be so described as to contradict the idea of reconciliation, as, e.g., in the Arian heresy. Again, all descriptions of God s relations to the universe which imply that the universe and all things are not absolutely dependent on Him, which imply that His gracious pur pose can be thwarted, contradict the idea of reconciliation, and so may give rise to heresies, e.g., the Gnostic doctrine that matter is independent of God. Misstatements about God s relation to Him self and about His relation to the universe give rise to two different kinds of heresy. II. Reconciliation implies a real mediator who can accomplish the reconciliation on both its sides, and so heresies may arise about the nature of Christ. The Saviour may be so described that there is no real mediation, and no real reconciliation. These errors may arise in two ways, as one or other side of the mediator is described. The Saviour may be represented so that He has no real relation to God on the one hand or to man on the other. He may be described in such a way that there is no solidarity between Him and God, as e.g., in the Ebionite heresy; or He maybe described in such a way that there is no solidarity between Him and man, as in the Docetist heresy. Misstatements about the relation of Christ to God and the relation of Christ to man give rise to two different kinds of heresy. III. Reconciliation implies that man is so separated from God by sin that there is real need for salvation, and yet not so separated that he cannot be brought into communion with God again ; and the nature of man, and especially the presence of sin in man, may be so described as to set aside these requirements. The fact of sin and its presence in man may be so explained away as to leave little ground for the necessity of reconciliation, e.g., in the Pelagian heresy. Again, on the other hand, the fact and presence of sin may be so described that there is no capacity in man for salvation ; it may be alleged that sin belongs to the essential nature of man and cannot be removed, e.y., in the Manichaean heresy. These two misstatements about the connexion between man and sin give rise to two kinds of heresy. IV. The results of the reconciliation effected by Christ may also be misrepresented in two ways. The separation between man and God, which is the formal occasion of the reconciliation, was caused by sin ; and the distance between God and man is a moral one. It is not such a separation as might arise from the difference between the divine and the human nature, or from the inevitable distance between Creator and creature. And so reconciliation has for its effect, not mere absorption into God, but the restoration of moral communion between God and His people. The intercourse was broken by sin, and the result of reconciliation must be moral ; it must take effect in a change of will, in the creation of a life of new obedience. False ideas arise when this is misrepresented, and these misrepresentations can arise in two ways : when it is said that the action of divine grace impregnates the nature in a magical way, instead of taking effect on the will in a moral fashion, e.g., the magical ilea of sacramental efficacy ; or when it is said that the result of the reconciliation is to raise man above the necessity of living a moral life and of conforming to the laws of morality, e.g. , the Antinomian heresy. Thus theology finds at least eight separate kinds of heresy, arising from the entrance of foreign elements into the four fundamental ideas of Christianity. All heresies may be reduced to one or other of these eight classes. In point of fact, however, most heresies which have actually arisen cannot be said to belong purely to any one of them. The class only denotes the type ; for one error is apt to bring others in its train, and so most heresies are mixed, and do not in all respects conform to their type. Theologians, however, have not rested content with the mere theoretical or genetic description of heresy and here tics, and have commonly borrowed distinctions first laid down by jurists in canon law to distinguish more narrowly the characteristic marks of heresy. Thus a false doctrine to be a heresy must be an intellectual error, it must be held voluiiiarily, it must contradict a doctrine already defined by the formula of the church, it must be held pertinaciously, and the heretic must be professedly ivithin the church ; but these distinctions belong properly to the legal aspect of heresy, and must be referred to again. Many theologians, Schleiermacher among others, have attempted to describe the actual origin of heresies, and a common mode of explanation is as follows. Heresies arise in that province of theology called dogmatic, and commonly appear during the definition of some important part of dogmatic theology. Dogmatic theology is the rationale of the spiritual events and forces which have called Christianity into being. In the attempt made by the church to under stand these events and forces which have called it into being, its attention has commonly been confined to the more outstanding portions. The history of dogmatic shows us that from time to time the church has endeavoured to master one doctrine, not the whole round of doctrines ; it has endeavoured to make distinct single points, instead of working at the various relations of all the doctrines to each other. This very natural mode of work has the one dis advantage that it concentrates attention on isolated portions of doctrine rather than on the whole mass, and between the consecutive portions there are gaps. The mind of man, however, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and summarily fills these vacua up with material usually drawn from the prevailing philosophical or scientific theories of the day. These summary explanations or theories may or may not be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, and when they are not they become a fruitful source of heresies. One of the best illustrations of this is the introduction into theology of the Aristotelian doctrine of TO e/covo-iov, which gave the church the Pelagian heresy along with some others. So much for the general theological conception of heresy, of its nature, divisions, and sources ; but before proceeding to describe the use of the term in canon law, it should be observed that the theological does not always correspond with the ecclesiastical meaning of the word. It is generally acknowledged that Holy Scripture is the source of doctrine, and that for the due understanding thereof the enlightening guidance of the Holy Spirit is required ; though, of course, the precise meaning of this statement varies in different systems of theology. Holy Scripture and the witness of the Spirit of God are thus the touchstone of heresy. In the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, however, it is held that the enlightening guidance of the Holy Spirit in this respect is restrained within the limits of certain ecclesias tical machinery (the oecumenical council, the pope ex cathedra, (fee.), which are the only channels through which the Spirit comes to the church, and hence the creed of the church rather than Scripture is the real touchstone of heresy. Protestant theologians, on the other hand, do not believe either that the guidance of the Spirit is always present within this ecclesiastical machinery or that it is given in this way only, and so they make a distinction between mere ecclesiastical and real theological heresies. Ecclesiastical heresies arise when a fundamental statement made in the creed or confession is contradicted. But it may happen, since creeds and councils may err, that the error is not in the contradiction but in the creed, and therefore there is always an appeal from the creed to the Scripture. The ecclesiastical idea of heresy has always the theological idea behind it, and may at any time be corrected by it. Roman Catholic and Greek theologians, on the other hand, do not adroit any going behind the record ; they do not allow any appeal from the creed to Scripture. According to their ideas the creed is the infallible digest of Scripture, and therefore heresy is to be tested by the creed and not by Scripture that is, the ecclesiastical and theological ideas of heresy are exactly the same. 2. Heresy according to Canon Law. Canon law was the ecclesiastical law of mediaeval Europe, and is still the law of the Roman Catholic Church, and its description of heresy and of heretics is almost more important than the theological in the investigation of the matter from the historical side. Canon law regards heresy