"Schisms" are not peculiar to the Church of the present day, nor
are they "the result of Protestantism," as some allege, unless
Protestantism is understood to represent that doctrine which is termed
"the right of private judgment," but which might be described rather
as the absolute necessity for each man to believe the truth for
himself, and not to be satisfied that another man should see and
believe it for him. This "doctrine," which is essential to the
reception of any truth whatever, must necessarily open the way to
error; just as the possession of reason, which is essential to a man's
thinking at all, must, in every case, involve the risk of his thinking
wrong.
But we know something of a Church founded by an apostle, presided over
for a time by an apostle, which was full of schisms. This was the
Church of Corinth. (See First Epistle to the Corinthians, first three
chapters.)
These schisms were marked by differences of mind and judgment; and by
"envying, strife, and divisions." Its "Protestantism" may, no doubt,
have occasioned this.
But along with these divisions, and partly their cause, partly their
effect, there was not only a warm attachment to particular ministers,
but positive antagonism to others professing the same faith, and doing
the same work. From the sameness of human nature in every age, we can
quite understand how each party would defend their sectarianism. "We
are of Apollos," some might have thus said. "We do not admire Peter.
He is too much of a Jew for us; besides, he denied his Lord, and
dissembled along with Barnabas at Antioch. We prefer our own minister
even to Paul. He is a much more eloquent man; of a much more
commanding figure and appearance; and how profound he is in his
knowledge of the Scriptures!" "We are of Paul," others might have
cried; "for he was chosen specially by Christ; and he has been
honoured by Him more than all; and does not the Church of Corinth,
moreover, owe its very existence to his preaching and labours? It is
a shame to belong to any other!" "We cling to Peter," a third party
might have said; "he lived with Christ when He was on earth, saw His
miracles, heard His words, was treated after the resurrection with
special love, and received from Him a special commission to feed His
sheep. Apollos is no _apostle_; and as for Paul, he persecuted the
Church, and confesses himself that he is not meet to be called an
apostle. Apollos is good, Paul better, but Peter is best!" "We belong
to neither," others could have boasted: "your divisions are so many,
your differences so great, that we have retired from all your meetings
in weariness; and each of us are of Christ only, and call no man
master but Him; you should all join us, the _Christians_:"--thus
making use of the very name of Christ to characterise a sect. Such
were some of the schisms; and to the schismatics St Paul said, "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 of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"
The apostle desired to heal those schisms, and to bring the members of
the Church into one mind. How did he endeavour to effect this?
Had he been a Papist, he might have said--"Why thus divided? Because
you are not building on the one true foundation, which is Peter! Do
you not understand the meaning of the name, _Cephas_, or the Rock,
given to him, and intended to teach all Christians that the temple of
the Church was to be built upon _this_ rock, and this only; against
which the gates of hell cannot prevail? Therefore, you who say, 'I am
of Cephas,' are right; all others are schismatics." Never, apparently,
had a man a better opportunity of revealing to the world this great
secret of unity than St. Paul had, if such was his faith, especially
when he compares the Church to a building, and speaks of a
foundation-stone. "As a wise master-builder," he says, "I have laid
the foundation, and another buildeth thereon.... For other foundation
can no man lay than that is laid, which is"--Cephas, or the rock? No!
but "_Jesus Christ_." Not one word of Cephas as the centre of unity.
Strange silence for a "Roman Catholic!"
Had Paul been a "High Churchman," viewing with deep awe the mystery of
sacramental grace, we can understand how he would have spoken to the
schismatic Corinthians of the vast importance of their submitting to
absolute apostolic authority, and of "the awful powers with which
God's ministers had been vested, of regenerating souls by the waters
of baptism;" and how "such a clergy should command unqualified
obedience." If these, or anything like these, were Paul's sentiments,
and such as we are every day familiar with, it is not easy, to say the
least of it, to account for his language to the Corinthians. What does
_he_ say of the exalted privilege of being able to baptize? "I thank
God I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius:" strange words
from a "High Churchman!" or a "High" Baptist! "I baptized also the
household of Stephanas: besides, _I know not_ whether I baptized any
other:" strange forgetfulness on such a supposed centre point of
Church unity! "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
gospel:" strange idea of the relative importance of preaching and
baptizing for a "High Churchman" to hold! And as to the "commanding
authority" of the apostles, merely because they were apostles, apart
from, the commanding authority of the eternal truth which they
"commended" to the conscience and judgment of their hearers, Paul
asks, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos?" Methinks we hear some
exclaim: "Oh, these men were the greatest, the most remarkable, the"--We
will not, however, take up space by repeating the laudations
with which some would exalt their authority, with the view of
magnifying the mere official authority of the clergy. But what says
the apostle himself? He says they were only "ministers by whom ye
believed." It was not the minister who did good, but the truth which
he ministered, and which he had received from another. It was not the
man who sowed the seed, or the basket which held it, that gave the
crop; but the living seed itself. Hence he adds: "So then neither is
he that planteth _anything_, nor he that watereth!" What? Neither
presbyter nor bishop, neither Paul nor Apollos, _anything_? Strange
words, again we say, from a "High Churchman," whether Episcopalian,
Presbyterian, or any other denomination; _for "High Churchmen" are
common to all Churches_. Yet not strange from St Paul, who knew how
true his words were, and that not man, but God, who gave the increase,
was "everything."
What, then, was the apostle's method of curing schism, and of making
men truly one who had been "divided?"
He directed every eye, and every heart, and every spirit, to one
object--JESUS CHRIST, the personal Saviour, the centre and source of
unity; in fellowship with whom all men would find their fellowship
with each other.
"We preach Christ crucified." "I determined not to know anything among
you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." "For other foundation can
no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." These are his
declarations. And his conclusion from this great and blessed principle
is just what we might expect: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord." "Let no man glory in men: for all things are yours; whether
Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or
things present, or things to come: all are yours; and ye are Christ's,
and Christ is God's."
Professing Christians would do well to weigh the apostle's cure of
schism. Our divisions of heart and alienation of spirit are unworthy
of educated men, and of the citizens of a free state, while they are
in spirit utterly subversive of the whole principles of Protestantism.
What! not able to hear the gospel preached from the lips of a minister
of another church, nor to remember Jesus with him or his people?
Not willing even to be on kind, or perhaps on speaking terms with
a brother minister? Such things not only have been, but _are_; and
while, thank God, they are repudiated and detested by men of all
Churches, they are common, we fear, among too many. No wonder Roman
Catholics point at our frequent boasting of Protestant "oneness in all
essentials," and ask with triumph, how it happens, then, that we are
such enemies on mere non-essentials? How it is that we pretend to be
one when attacking Papists, and then turn our backs on each other
when left alone? No wonder the High Churchman of England asks the
Presbyterians in Scotland to forgive _him_ if he never enters our
Presbyterian churches, hears our clergy, partakes of our sacraments,
when so very many among ourselves practically excommunicate each
other. No wonder the infidel lecturer describes to crowds of
intelligent mechanics, in vivid and powerful language, the spectacle
presented by many among our Christian clergy and people, and asks,
with a smile of derision, If _ithis_ is a religion of love which they
see around them--if these men believe the gospel--and if Christians
have really more kindness and courtesy than "publicans and sinners?"
Worse than all, no wonder our churches languish, and men are asking
with pain, why the ministry is not producing more true spiritual
fruit, which is love to God and man? The Churches are, no doubt,
_doing_ much. We have meetings, associations, and organisations, with
no end of committees, resolutions, and motions; we raise large sums of
money; we have large congregations;--yet all this, and much more, we
can do from pride, vanity, love of party, love of power, the spirit
of proselytism, and the like. We may possess many gifts, understand
mysteries and all knowledge; we may bestow our goods to feed the poor,
in zeal for Church or party we may be willing to give our bodies to
be burned; but before God it profiteth us nothing, unless we have
the "love that suffereth long, and is kind, that envieth not, that
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself
unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no
evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth
all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things,"
Surely our schisms may be healed if there be a Saviour thus to heal
them!
One word in conclusion. Neither the letter nor the spirit of the
apostle's teaching condemn a warm and firm attachment to "our own
Church," but antagonism only to other Churches. A soldier may love,
and ought to love his own regiment with peculiar affection, more
especially if he has been born in it, and brought up from childhood,
as it were, in its ranks. And it should be his honest pride to see
that it is one of the best drilled, most orderly, most efficient, and
bravest in the whole army. But that is no reason why he should
go about with a drum to recruit from, weaken, or break up other
regiments; or why he should deny that there _are_ other regiments
which equally belong to the grand army, and may be even more efficient
than his own, though they do not wear the exact pattern of uniform, or
may charge on horseback while his marches on foot, or possess cannon
while his own have but small arms. Why should he be jealous of their
achievements? Why should he be disposed to fight against them instead
of against the common enemy? And, worse than all, why assert and boast
that this one regiment of his is _the_ army, while all others are mere
unauthorised volunteers, or enemies in disguise? It is full time for
sensible men to give up this vain boasting, proud antagonism, and
irritating ambitious proselytism.
Instead, therefore, of any man attempting, what is impossible during a
lifetime, to understand the distinctive principles of each of the many
sections of the Christian Church, so as to "join" that one which seems
most "pure" and "scriptural," he is much better, as a rule, to remain,
if it is at all possible for him, in the Church of his fathers, in
which he was baptized and reared, and to do all in his power, by his
example, his prayers, and his steady, manly, firm attachment, to
make "his own Church" more efficient, and to permit others, without
interference, to do the same. Thus may a man be a good Presbyterian
in Scotland, and also a good Episcopalian in England, or possibly a
Nonconformist in both, unless he believes in the Divine origin and
authority of some one ecclesiastical system, and the mundane origin of
all others. With perfect consistency and sincerity he may dearly love
his Church, but yet love Christians more, because he loves Christ best
of all.
These sentiments may be considered by many good Christians as sinfully
"latitudinarian;" but to all who think so we would suggest the
following simple experiment. When they have perused with care and
reflection those portions of the Epistles of St Paul, and those
incidents in his missionary journeys, which reveal most clearly what
we might term his "church views," let them conceive of this same holy
apostle suddenly awaking from his grave and visiting the different
churches in our country, and then honestly say, from what they know
of his character and teaching, whether they think it improbable or
impossible that he would countenance all our churches in so far as
they sincerely desired to do God's will and advance His kingdom. Would
he not as of old say, "Grace be with all who love the Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity!"
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.
For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be
within thee. Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy
_good_."