SCHISM

 

(From Foxe’s Book of Martyrs)

 

What were the divisions or schisms in the Church in Corinth?  It is apparent at once that they did not consist in separation from communion of the Church, and the formation of other churches or sects.  In order to obtain a proper idea of what is meant by a breach or schism in this application we must form a just notion of that which constituted the union whereof schism was a violation.  Now the great and powerful cement which united the souls of Christians was their mutual love.  Their hearts,’ is the emphatic language of Holy Writ, ‘were knit together in love’ (Col. 2: 2).  This had been declared by their Master to be the distinguishing badge of their profession.  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another’ (John 13: 35). As this, therefore, is the great criterion of the Christian character, and the foundation of the Christian unity, whatever alienates the affections of Christians from one another, is manifestly subversive of both, and may, consequently, with the greatest truth and energy be denominated schism.

 

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 Church of Corinth, we are not informed, nor is it material for us to know.  From what follows in the epistle, it is not improbable that they might have thought it proper in this manner to range themselves under those who had been the instruments of their conversion to Christianity, or perhaps those by whom they had been baptised, or for whom they contracted a special veneration.

 

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.

 

-------