Schism

schisma, formed from cyicjscs cleft, fi ure, in the general, signifies division, or separation; but it is chiefly used in speaking of separations happening through diversity of opinions among people of the same religion and faith, Thus, we say the schism of the ten tribes of Israel from the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin; the schism of the Persians from the Turks and other Mahometans, . Among ecclesiastical authors, the great schism of the West is that which happened in the times of Urban VI. and Clement VII. who were both advanced to the papacy at the same time, the latter residing at Avignon in France, and the former at Rome, which divided the church for forty or fifty years; the cause of Clement being espoused by France and Spain, Scotland, Sicily, and Cyprus, while the rest of Europe acknowledged Urban to be the true vicar of Christ; and was at length ended by the elec-~ tion of Martin V. at the council of Con stance, summoned to meet in the year 1414. The Romanists number thirty-four schisms in their church. They bestow the name English schism on the reformation of religion in this kingdom. Those of the church of England, again, apply the term schism to the separation of the non-conformists; viz. the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, who contend for a farther reformation. Some call the separation of the Protestants from the church of Rome a pa ive schism; because that church cut them off from her communion. The word schism is used, in scripture, in an ‘indifferent sense; and, therefore, the lawfulne or unlawfulne of it is entirely to be determined by circumstances. In our own language, indeed, common use has affixed to the term an idea of guilt and reproach: but in this sense there can be no such thing as schism, except in cases where there is an obligation to unity and communion: so that in order to define the nature of it justly, we must’ find out some cenire of union, which is common to all Christians. This must be either uniformity of sentiment in matters of speculative belief, or in external modes of worship and discipline, which, in the nature of things, is impo ible; or, if it be unreasonable to expect either of these, the only centre of unity that remains, is charity eu mutual forbearance, notwithstanding le er differences, where there is an a ent to all the nece ary principles of Christian faith, and the profe ion of Christianity is proved to be sincere by a regular and virtuous life. However numerous the differences that subsist among Christians, as long as mutual charity is preserved, there cannot be the guilt of schism. Alienation of affection, and a turbulent excommunicating spirit, the e ence schism, and not mere difference of opinion; not the use of different ceremonies, or of. no ceremonies at all; or joining ourselves avy particular religions communion: for, aecording to St. Paul, who in several pa ages blames the Corinthians for divisions, schisms, among themselves in the same community, this crime may be committed where there is no separation from a particular church; and, consequently, they that differ uncharitably, whether they belong all to one, or form distinct worshipping a emblies (and. they alone), are schismatics. Mr. Locke, when writing on this subject, sets out with remarking, that men of diflerent religions cannot be either heretics or schismatics to one another. We are to enquire, therefore, says he, what men are of the same religion; concerning which it is manifest, that those who have one and the same rule of faith and worship are of the same religion; and those who have not the same rule of faith and worship are of different religions. For, since all things which belong to that religion are contained in that rule, it follows nece arily, that those who agree in one rule are of one and the same religion, and vice vers a. Thus ‘Turks and Christians are of different religions; because these take the Holy Scriptures to be the rule of their religion, and those the Koran. And for the same reason there may be different religions even among Christians. The Papists and the Luther ans, though both of them profe faith in. Christ, and are therefore called Christians, yet are not both of the same religion; because these acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be the rule and foundation of their religion; those take in also traditions and the decrees of popes, and of all these together make the rule of their religion, And thus the Christians of St. John. (as they. are called), and the Christians of Geneva, are of different religions; because these also take only the s¢riptures, and those, we know not what traditions, for the rule of their religion. This being settled, it follows, first, that heresy is a separation made in ecclesiastical communion between men of the same religion, for some opinions no way contained in the rule itself. And, 2dly, that amongst those who acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be their rule of faith, heresy is a separation made in their Christian communion, for opinions not contained in the expre words of Scripture Now this separation may be made. in a twofold manner, 1. When the greater part, or (by the magistrate’s patronage) the stronger part, of the church separates itself from others, by excluding them out of her communion, because they will not profe their belief of certain opinions which are not to be found in the expre words of scripture. For it is not the paucity of those that are separated, nor the authority of the magistrate, that can make any man guilty of heresy. But he only is a heretic who divides the church into parts, introduces names and marks of distinction, and voluntarily makes a separation because of such opinions, 2, When any one separates himself. from the church, because that church. does not publicly profe some certain opinions which. the Holy Scriptures do not expre ly teach, Both these are heretics; because they err in fundamentals, and they err obstinatély against knowledge. For, when they have determined the Holy Scriptures to be the only foundation of faith, they neverthele lay down certain’ propositions as fundamental, which are not in the scripture; and because others will not tise these additional opinions of theirs, nor build upon them as if they were nece ary and fundamental, they therefore make a separation in the church; either by withdrawing themselves from the others, or expelling the others from them. Nor does it signify any thing for them to say, that their confe ions and symbols are agreeable to scrip~ ture and to the analogy of faith. For if they be conceived in the expre words of scripture, there can be no question about them; because these are acknowledged by all Christians to be of divine inspiration, and therefore fundamental. | But if they say that the articles which they require to be profe ed are consequences deduced from the scripture, it is undoubtedly well dene of them to believe and profe such. things as seem unto them so agreeable to the rule of faith: but it would be very ill done to obtrude those things upon others, unto whom. they do not seem to be the indubitable doctrines of scripture. And to make a separation, for such thiugs as these, which neither are nor can be fundamental, is to become heretics. For I do not think there is any man arrived to that degree of madne , as that he dare give out his consequences and interpretations of scripture as divine inspirations, and compare the articles of faith that he has framed according to his own fancy, with the authority of scripture. I know there are some propositions so evidently agreeable to scripture, that nobody can deny them to be drawn from thence; but about those, therefore, there can be no difference. This only I say, that however clearly we may think this. or the other doctrine to be deduced from scripture, we ought not therefore to iunpose it upon others as a nece ary article of faith, because we believe it to be agreeable to the rule of faith, unle we would be content also that other doctrines should be imposed upon us iu the same manner, Thus much concerning heresy; which word, in common use, is applied only to the doctrinal. part of religion. _ Let us now consider schism, which is a crime near akin to it. For both these words seem to me to signify an ill grounded separation in ecclesiastical communion, made about things not nece ary. But since use, which is the supreme law in matters of language, has determined that heresy relates. to errors in faith, and schism to those in worship or discipline, we must consider them un=" der that distinction. Schism then, for the same reasons that have. already been alleged, is nothing else but a separation made in the communion of the church upon account of something in divine worship or ecclesiastical discipline, that is not any nece ary part of it. Now, nothing in worship or discipline can be nece ary to Chris. tian communion, but what Christ our legisla~. tor, or the apostles, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have commanded in expre words. In fine: he that denies not any thing that the Holy Scriptures teach in expre words,’ nor makes a separation upon occasion of any thing that is not manifestly contained in the sacred text, however he may be nicknamed by any sect of Christians, and declared, by some or all of them, to be utterly void of true Christianity, yet indeed and in truth this man cannot be either a heretic or a schismatic. (Locke on Toleration.) 494 495