_THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE APOSTLE'S
DIRECTIONS RESPECTING THE TREATMENT OF HERETICAL PERSONS._
"A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse;
knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being
self-condemned"--TITUS iii. 10, 11.
It is in connexion with this instruction respecting the treatment of
heretical persons that we have some of the earliest testimonies to the
genuineness of the Epistle to Titus. Thus Irenaeus about A.D. 180 writes:
"But as many as _fall away from_" (=aphistantai=, 1 Tim. iv. 1) "the
Church and give heed to these _old wives' fables_" (=graôdesi mythois=, 1
Tim. iv. 7), "are truly _self-condemned_" (=autokatakritoi=, Tit. iii.
1): "whom Paul charges us _after a first and second admonition to
refuse_" (_Adv. Haer._, I. xvi. 3). It will be observed that in this
passage Irenaeus makes an obvious allusion to the First Epistle to
Timothy, and then quotes the very words of our text, attributing them
expressly to St. Paul. And about ten or twelve years later, Tertullian,
after commenting on St. Paul's words to the Corinthians, "For there must
be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you" (1 Cor. xi. 19), continues as follows: "But no more
about that, seeing that it is the same Paul who elsewhere also in
writing to the Galatians reckons heresies among sins of the flesh (Gal.
v. 20), and who intimates to Titus that a _man who is heretical must
after a first[84] admonition be refused, because he that is such is
perverted and sinneth as being self-condemned_. But in almost every
Epistle, when insisting on the duty of avoiding false doctrines, he
censures heresies of which the practical results are false doctrines,
called in Greek _heresies_, with reference to the _choice_ which a man
exercises, whether in instituting or in adopting them. For this reason
he says that the heretical person is also self-condemned, because he has
chosen for himself that in which he is condemned. We, however, may not
allow ourselves anything after our own will; nor yet choose what any one
has introduced of his own will. The Apostles of the Lord are our
authorities: and even they did not choose to introduce anything of their
own will, but faithfully consigned to the nations the instruction which
they received from Christ. And so, even if an angel from heaven were to
preach any other gospel, he would be called accursed by us" (_De Praes.
Haer._, vi). In this passage, which contains a valuable comment on the
meaning of the word "heresy," it will be noticed that Tertullian not
only quotes the text before us as coming from the Epistle to Titus, but,
like Irenaeus, his earlier contemporary, says expressly that the words
are those of St. Paul. Thus, from both sides of the Mediterranean, men
who had very large opportunities of knowing what books were accepted as
Apostolic and what not, attribute our Epistle without hesitation to St.
Paul. And in both cases this is done in treatises directed against
heretics, who might be expected to reply with very telling effect, if it
could be shown that what was quoted against them as the writing of an
Apostle was of quite doubtful origin and authority.
But the testimony which these passages bear to the authenticity of this
Epistle is not the main reason for their being quoted here. Their
interest for us now consists in the light which they throw upon the
history of the word "heresy," and upon the attitude of the primitive
Church towards heretics.
"Heresy," as Tertullian points out, is a word of Greek origin, and the
idea which lies at the root of it is _choice_.[85] Choosing for oneself
what pleases oneself, independently of other considerations;--that is
the fundamental notion on which later meanings of the term are based.
Thus in the Septuagint it is used of a _free-will_ offering, as distinct
from what a man is bound to offer (Lev. xxii. 18; comp. 1 Macc. viii.
30). Then comes the notion of choice in reference to matters of opinion,
without, however, necessarily implying that the chosen opinion is a bad
one. And in this sense it is used quite as often for the party or school
of thought which holds the particular opinion as for the body of opinion
which is held. In this sense it is several times used in the Acts of the
Apostles; as "the _sect_ of the Sadducees" (v. 17), "the _sect_ of the
Pharisees" (xv. 5; xxvi. 5): and in this way Christianity itself was
spoken of as a "heresy" or "sect"; that is, a party with chosen opinions
(xxiv. 5, 14; xxviii. 22). And in profane literature we find Diogenes
Laertius in the second or third century speaking of ten "heresies" or
schools in moral philosophy (i. 19). But it will be seen from the
passages in the Acts that the word is already acquiring somewhat of a
bad meaning; and indeed this was almost inevitable, unless the original
signification was entirely abandoned. In all spheres of thought and
action, and especially in matters of belief, a tendency to choose for
oneself, and to pursue one's own way independently, almost of necessity
leads to separation from others, to divisions and factions. And factions
in the Church readily widen into schisms and harden into heresies.
Outside the Acts of the Apostles the word heresy is found in the New
Testament only in three passages: 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20; and 2 Pet.
ii. 1. In the last of these it is used of the erroneous opinions
themselves; in the other two the parties who hold them may be indicated.
But in all cases the word is used of divisions inside the Church, not of
separations from it or of positions antagonistic to it. Thus in 2 Pet.
ii. 1 we have the prophecy that "there shall be false teachers, who
shall privily _bring in_ destructive _heresies_, denying even the Master
that bought them." Here the false teachers are evidently inside the
Church, corrupting its members; not outside, inducing its members to
leave it. For the prophecy continues: "And many shall follow their
lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil
spoken of." They could not cause "the way of the truth to be evil spoken
of," if they were complete outsiders, professing to have no connexion
with it. In Gal. v. 20 "heresies" are among "the works of the flesh"
against which St. Paul warns his fickle converts, and "heresies" are
there coupled with "factions" and "divisions." In 1 Cor. xi. 19 the
Apostle gives as a reason for believing the report that there are
divisions in the Church of Corinth the fact that (man's tendency to
differ being what it is) divisions are inevitable, and have their use,
for in this way those which are approved among Christians are made
manifest. It is possible in both these passages to understand St. Paul
as meaning the "self-chosen views," as in the passage in 2 Pet., rather
than the schools or parties which have adopted the views. But this is
not of much moment. The important thing to notice is, that in all three
cases the "heresies" have caused or are tending to cause splits inside
the Church: they do not indicate hostile positions outside it. This use
of the word is analogous to that in the Acts of the Apostles, where it
represents the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the Christian Church
itself, as parties or schools inside Judaism, not as revolts against it.
We shall be seriously misled, if we allow the later meaning of "heresy,"
with all its medieval associations, to colour our interpretation of the
term as we find it in the New Testament.
Another important thing to remember in reference to the strong language
which St. Paul and other writers in the New Testament use with regard to
"heresies" and erroneous doctrine, and the still stronger language used
by early Christian writers in commenting on these texts, is the
downright wickedness of a good many of the "self-chosen views" which had
begun to appear in the Church in the first century, and which became
rampant during the second. The peril, not only to faith, but to morals,
was immense, and it extended to the very foundations of both. When
Christians were told that there were two Creators, of whom one was good
and one was evil; that the Incarnation was an impossibility; that man's
body was so vile that it was a duty to abuse it; that his spirit was so
pure that it was impossible to defile it; that to acquire knowledge
through crime was estimable, for knowledge was good, and crime was of no
moral significance to the enlightened;--then it was necessary to speak
out, and tell men in plain terms what the persons who were inculcating
such views were really doing, and what strong measures would be
necessary, if they persisted in such teaching.
Unless we keep a firm grasp upon these two facts;--(1) the difference
between the meaning of the word "heresy" as we find it in the New
Testament and its usual meaning at the present time; and (2) the
monstrous character of some of the views which many persons in the first
century, and many more in the second, claimed to hold as part and parcel
of the Christian religion;--we shall be liable to go grievously astray
in drawing conclusions as to our own practice from what is said on the
subject in Scripture.
"Woe unto the world," said our blessed Lord, "because of occasions of
stumbling! For it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that
man through whom the occasion cometh" (Matt. xviii. 7). Human nature
being what it is, it is morally impossible that no one should ever lead
another into sin. But that fact does not destroy the responsibility of
the individual who leads his fellows into sin. St. Paul takes up the
principle thus laid down by Christ and applies it in a particular
sphere. He tells his Corinthian converts that "there must be heresies"
among them, and that they serve the good purpose of sifting the chaff
from the wheat. Wherever the light comes, it provokes opposition; there
is at once antagonism between light and darkness. This is as true in the
sphere of faith and morals as in that of the material world. Sooner or
later, and generally sooner rather than later, truth and innocence are
met and opposed by falsehood and sin; and it is falsehood, wilfully
maintained in opposition to revealed and generally held truth, that
constitutes the essence of heresy. There are many false opinions outside
what God has revealed to mankind, outside the scope of the Gospel.
However serious these may be, they are not heresies. A man may be
fatally at fault in matters of belief; but, unless in some sense he
accepts Christianity as true, he is no heretic. As Tertullian says, "In
all cases truth precedes its copy; after the reality the likeness
follows" (_De Praes. Haer._, xxix). That is, heresy, which is the
caricature of Christian truth, must be subsequent to it. It is a
distortion of the original truth, which some one has arrogantly chosen
as preferable to that of which it is the distortion. Error which has not
yet come in contact with revelation, and which has had no opportunity of
either submitting to it or rebelling against it, is not heretical. The
heretical spirit is seen in that cold critical temper, that
self-confident and self-willed attitude, which accepts and rejects
opinions on principles of its own, quite independently of the principles
which are the guaranteed and historical guides of the Church. But it
cannot accept or reject what has never been presented to it; nor, until
the Christian faith has to some extent been accepted, can the rejection
of the remainder of it be accounted heresy. Heresy is "a disease of
Christian knowledge." The disease may have come from without, or may
have developed entirely from within; and in the former case the source
of the malady may be far older than Christianity itself. But until the
noxious elements have entered the Christian organism and claimed a home
within the system, it is a misuse of language to term them heretical.
We have not exhausted the teaching of the Apostles respecting this
plague of self-assertion and independent teaching, which even in their
time began to afflict the infant Church, when we have considered all the
passages in which the words "heresy" and "heretical" occur. There are
other passages, in which the thing is plainly mentioned, although this
name for it is not used. It has been said that "the Apostles, though
they claimed disciplinary authority, had evidently no thought of
claiming infallibility for any utterances of theirs."[86] But they
certainly treated opposition to their teaching, or deviations from it,
as a very serious matter. St. Paul speaks of those who opposed him in
the Church of Corinth as "false apostles, deceitful workers" and
"ministers of Satan" (2 Cor. xi. 13-15). He speaks of the Galatians as
"bewitched" by those who would pervert the Gospel of Christ, and
pronounces an anathema on those who should "preach any gospel other than
that which he preached" (Gal. i. 7, 8; iii. 1). Of the same class of
teachers at Philippi he writes: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil
workers, beware of the concision" (iii. 2). He warns the Colossians
against any one who may "make spoil of them through his philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ" (ii. 8); just as he warned the elders of
the Church at Ephesus that after his departure "grievous wolves would
enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and that from among
themselves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the
disciples after them" (Acts xx. 29, 30). And in the Pastoral Epistles we
have several utterances of the same kind, including the one before us (1
Tim. i. 3-7, 19, 20; iv. 1-3; vi. 3, 4, 20, 21; Tit. i. 10-16; iii.
8-11; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18; iii. 8, 13).
Nor is St. Paul the only writer in the New Testament who feels bound to
write in this strain. The same kind of language fills no inconsiderable
portion of the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2 Pet.
ii.; Jude 8-16). More remarkable still, we find even the Apostle of Love
speaking in tones not less severe. The Epistles to the Seven Churches of
Asia abound in such things (Rev. ii.; iii). In his General Epistle he
asks, "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son" (1
John ii. 22: comp. ii. 26; iv. 1, 3). In his letter to "the elect lady
and her children" he speaks of the "many deceivers" who "confess not
that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh." And, in a passage not unlike the
direction to Titus which we are now considering, he says: "If any one
cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into
your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting
partaketh in his evil works."
The impression which these passages produce on our minds is at least
this;--that, whether or no the Apostles were conscious of being
protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching anything that was
doctrinally false, they were at any rate very stern in their
condemnation of those Christians who deliberately contravened what an
Apostle had taught. And this sternness is not confined to those who
resisted the instructions of Apostles in matters of discipline. It is
quite as clearly manifested against those who contradicted Apostolic
teaching in matters of faith. The context of the passage before us shows
that by "a man that is heretical" is meant one who wilfully takes his
own line and thereby causes divisions in doctrine quite as much as one
who does so as regards the order and discipline of the Church.
What, then, does St. Paul mean when he directs Titus to "refuse" such a
person after once or twice admonishing him? Certainly not that he is to
excommunicate him; the passage has nothing to do with formal
excommunication. It is possible to maintain that the direction here
given may _imply_ excommunication; but it is also possible to maintain
that it need not imply anything of the kind; and therefore that such an
interpretation substitutes an uncertain inference for what is certainly
expressed. The word translated in the R.V. "refuse," and in the A.V.
"reject," is the same as that which is used in 1 Tim. v. 11 in the text,
"Younger widows _refuse_" (=paraitou=). It means, "avoid, shun, excuse
yourself from having anything to do with" (comp. Heb. xii. 25). It is
also used of things as well as of persons, and in much the same sense:
"_Refuse_ profane and old wives' fables" (1 Tim. iv. 7), and "Foolish
and ignorant questions _refuse_" (2 Tim. ii. 23). The meaning, then,
here seems to be that, after a few attempts to induce the heretical
person to desist from his perverse and self-willed conduct, Titus is to
waste no more time on him, because now he knows that his efforts will
be useless. At first he did not know this; but after having failed once
or twice, he will see that it is vain to repeat what produces no effect.
The man's self-will is incorrigible; and not only that, but inexcusable;
for he stands self-condemned. He deliberately chose what was opposed to
the received teaching; and he deliberately persists in it after its
erroneous character has been pointed out to him. He "is perverted, and
sinneth": that is, he not only has sinned, but goes on sinning: he
continues in his sin, in spite of entreaty, exhortation, and reproof.
In what way are the directions here given to Titus to be used for our
own guidance at the present time? Certain limitations as to their
application have been already pointed out. They do not apply to persons
who have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves, outside
the Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their
self-chosen views are part and parcel of the Gospel, and who claim to
hold and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church.
Secondly, they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to
first principles; not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail.
And in determining this second point much caution will be needed;
especially when inferences are drawn from a man's teaching. We should be
on our guard with regard to assertions that a particular teacher
_virtually_ denies the Divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the
personality of God. But when both these points are quite clear, that the
person contradicts some of the primary truths of the Gospel, and that he
claims to do so as a Christian, what is a minister to do to such a
member of his flock? He is to make one or two efforts to reclaim him,
and then to have as little to do with him as possible.
In all such cases there are three sets of persons to be considered:--the
heretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the Church at
large. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with him will
be least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church, and most
beneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the
guiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to
one person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more
harm than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is
not only consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without
such hatred. What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will
friendliness confirm him in his error? Would he be more impressed by
severity? Is intercourse with him likely to lead to our being led
astray? Will it increase his influence and his opportunities of doing
harm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy in other people, first for
him, and then for his teaching? It is impossible to lay down a hard and
fast rule that would cover all cases; and while we remember the stern
instructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St. John to the "elect
lady," let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ treated publicans
and sinners.
In our own day there is danger of mistaking lazy or weak indifferentism
for Christian charity. It is a convenient doctrine that the beliefs of
our fellow-Christians are no concern of ours, even when they try to
propagate what contradicts the creed. And, while emphasis is laid upon
the responsibility of accepting articles of faith, it is assumed that
there is little or no responsibility in refusing to accept, or in
teaching others to refuse also. To plead for tenderness, where severity
is needed, is not charity, but Laodicean lukewarmness; and mistaken
tenderness may easily end in making us "partakers in evil works." To be
severe, when severity is imperatively called for, is not only charity to
the offenders, it "is also charity towards all men besides. It is
charity towards the _ignorant_ as carrying instruction along with it;
charity towards the _unwary_, as giving them warning to stand off from
infection; charity towards the _confirmed_ Christians, as encouraging
them still more, and preserving them from insults; charity towards the
_whole Church_, as supporting both their unity and purity; charity
towards _all mankind_, towards them that are _without_, as it is
recommending pure religion to them in the most advantageous light,
obviating their most plausible calumnies, and giving them less occasion
to blaspheme."[87]
FOOTNOTES:
[84] It is worth noting that Tertullian, with several other Latin
writers, omits the second admonition: _hominem haereticum post primam
correptionem recusandum_. Similarly Cyprian: _haereticum hominem post
unam correptionem devita_ (_Test._, III. 78).
[85] =hairesis=, from =hairein=, =haireisthai=, "to choose": not from
_haerere_, "to stick fast," as has been ignorantly asserted.
[86] T. Ll. Davies in a remarkable paper on "The Higher Life," in the
_Fortnightly Review_, January, 1888.
[87] Waterland, _The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity_ IV.
ii. 2; Works, vol. v. p. 96. Oxford, 1823.
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.