Difference between revisions of "Heresy"

<p> <em> haeresis, </em> αιρεσις , from αιρεω , <em> I choose, </em> signifies an error in some essential point of [[Christian]] faith, publicly avowed, and obstinately maintained; or, according to the legal definition, <em> "Sententia rerum divinarum humano sensu excogitata, palam docta, et pertinaciter defensa." </em> [An opinion of divine things invented by human reason, openly taught, and obstinately defended.] Among the ancients, the word <em> heresy </em> appears to have had nothing of that odious signification which has been attached to it by ecclesiastical writers in later times. It only signified a peculiar opinion, dogma, or sect, without conveying any reproach; being indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one disapproved, by the writer. In this. sense they spoke of the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, Epicureans, &c, meaning the sect or peculiar system of these philosophers. In the historical part of the New Testament, the word seems to bear very nearly the same signification, being employed indiscriminately to denote a sect or party, whether good or bad. Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the Sadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c. See &nbsp; Acts 5:17; &nbsp;Acts 15:5; &nbsp;Acts 24:5; &nbsp;Acts 26:5; &nbsp;Acts 28:22 . In the two former of these passages, the term <em> heresy </em> seems to be adopted by the sacred historian merely for the sake of distinction, without the least appearance, of any intention to convey either praise or blame. In &nbsp; Acts 26:4-5 , St. Paul, in defending himself before King Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was manifestly his design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and to give their system the preference over every other system of Judaism, both with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals. </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> It has been suggested that the acceptation of the word αιρεσις in the epistles is different from what it has been observed to be in the historical books of the New Testament. In order to account for this difference, it may be observed that the word <em> sect </em> has always something relative in it; and therefore, although the general import of the term be the same, it will convey a favourable or an unfavourable idea, according to the particular relation which it bears in the application. When it is used along with the proper name, by way of distinguishing one party from another, it conveys neither praise nor reproach. If any thing reprehensible or commendable be meant, it is suggested, not by the word αιρεσις itself, but by the words with which it stands connected in construction. Thus we may speak of a strict sect, or a lax sect; or of a good sect, or a bad sect. Again: the term may be applied to a party formed in a community, when considered in reference to the whole. If the community be of such a nature as not to admit of such a subdivision, without impairing or corrupting its constitution, a charge of splitting into sects, or forming parties, is equivalent to a charge of corruption in that which is most essential to the existence and welfare of the society. Hence arises the whole difference in the word, as it is used in the historical part of the New Testament, and in the epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul; for these are the only [[Apostles]] who employ it. In the history, the reference is always of the first kind; in the epistles, it is always of the second. In these last, the Apostles address themselves only to Christians, and either reprehend them for, or warn them against, forming sects among themselves, to the prejudice of charity, to the production of much mischief within their community, and of great scandal to the unconverted world without. In both applications, however, the radical import of the word is the same; and even in the latter it has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false. During the early ages of Christianity, the term <em> heresy </em> gradually lost the innocence of its original meaning, and came to be applied, in a reproachful sense, to any corruption of what was considered as the orthodox creed, or even to any departure from the established rites and ceremonies of the church. </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> The heresies chiefly alluded to in the apostolical epistles are, first, those of the Judaizers, or rigid adherents to the [[Mosaic]] rites, especially that of circumcision; second, those of converted Hellenists, or [[Grecian]] Jews, who held the Greek eloquence and philosophy in too high an estimation, and corrupted, by the speculations of the latter, the simplicity of the Gospel; and third, those who endeavoured to blend [[Christianity]] with a mixed philosophy of magic, demonology, and Platonism, which was then highly popular in the world. With respect to the latter, the remarks of Hug will tend to illustrate some passages in the writings of St. Paul;—Without being acquainted with the notions of those teachers who caused the [[Apostle]] so much anxiety and so much vexation, a considerable part of these treatises must necessarily remain dark and unintelligible. From the criteria by which the Apostle points them out, at one time some deemed that they recognized the Gnostics; others perceived none but the Essenes; and every one found arguments for his assertions from the similarity of the doctrines, opinions, and morals. It would, however, be as difficult to prove that the [[Gnostic]] school had at that time indeed perfectly developed itself, as it is unjust to charge the [[Essenes]] with that extreme of immorality of which St. Paul accused these seducers, since the contemporaries and acquaintances of this [[Jewish]] sect mention them with honour and respect, and extol its members as the most virtuous men of their age. The similarity of the principles and opinions, which will have been observed in both parties compared with St. Paul's declarations, flows from a common source, from the philosophy of that age, whence both the one and the other have derived their share. We shall therefore go less astray, if we recede a step, and consider the philosophy itself, as the general modeller of these derivative theories. It found its followers among [[Judaism]] as well as among the Heathens; it both introduced its speculative preparations into Christianity, and endeavoured to unite them or to adjust them to it, as well as they were able, by which means Christianity would have become deformed and unlike to itself, and would have been merged in the ocean of philosophical reveries, unless the Apostles had on this occasion defended it against the follies of men. An oriental, or, as it is commonly called, a [[Babylonian]] or Chaldean, doctrinal system had already long become known to the Greeks, and even to the Romans, before Augustus, and still more so in the Augustan age, and was in the full progress of its extension over Asia and Europe. It set up different deities and intermediate spirits in explanation of certain phenomena of nature, for the office of governing the world, and for the solution of other metaphysical questions, which from time immemorial were reckoned among the difficult propositions of philosophy. The practical part of this system was occupied with the precepts by means of which a person might enter into communication with these spirits or demons. But the result which they promised to themselves from this union with the divine natures, was that of acquiring, by their assistance, superhuman knowledge, that of predicting future events, and of performing supernatural works. These philosophers were celebrated under the name of magi and Chaldeans; who, for the sake of better accommodating themselves to the western nations, modified their system after the Greek forms, and then, as it appears, knew how to unite it with the doctrine of Plato, from whence afterward arose the Neo-Platonic and in [[Christendom]] the Gnostical school. These men forced their way even to the throne. [[Tiberius]] had received instruction in their philosophy, and was very confident that by means of an intelligence with the demons, it was possible to learn and perform extraordinary things. [[Nero]] caused a great number of them to be brought over from Asia, not unfrequently at the expense of the provinces. The supernatural spirits would not always appear, yet he did not discard his belief of them. The magi and [[Chaldeans]] were the persons who were consulted on great undertakings, who, when conspiracies arose, predicted the issue; who invoked spirits, prepared offerings, and in love affairs were obliged to afford aid from their art. Even the force of the laws, to which recourse was frequently necessary to be had at Rome, tended to nothing but the augmentation of their authority. As they found access and favour with people of all classes in the capital, so did they also in the provinces. Paul found a magus at the court of the proconsul at Paphos, &nbsp; Acts 13:6 . Such was that Simon in Samaria, &nbsp;Acts 8:10 , who was there considered as a higher being of the spiritual class. The expression is remarkable, as it is a part of the technical language of the Theurgists; they called him Δυναμι του Θεου μεγαλη , "The great power of God." So also Pliny calls some of the demons and intermediate spirits, by whose cooperation particular results were effected, <em> potestates. </em> [Powers.] Justin Martyr, the fellow countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some technical expressions of his followers. He says that they ascribed to him the high title υπερανω κ ασης αρχης , και εξουσιας , και δυναμεως . [Far above all principality, and power, and might.] Of these classes of spirits, which appear under such different appellations, the superior were those who ruled; but the inferior, who had more of a material substance, and who, on that account, were able to connect themselves immediately with matter, were those who executed the commands of the superior. By an intelligence with the superior spirits a person might have the subaltern at his service and assistance; for the more powerful demons thus commanded the inferior to execute certain commissions in the material world: ‘Σν τω αρχοντι των δαιμονιων , "By the prince of the devils," &nbsp;Matthew 12:24 . </p> <p> <strong> 4. </strong> The [[Syrian]] philosopher, Jamblichus, of Chalcis, has furnished us with a circumstantial representation of this system and its several varieties, in his book on the mysteries of the Chaldeans and Egyptians:—The nature of the gods is a pure, spiritual, and perfect unity. With this highest and perfect immateriality no influence on matter is conceivable, consequently, no creation and dominion of the world. [[Certain]] subordinate deities must therefore be admitted, which are more compounded in their nature, and can act upon gross matter. These are the "creators of the world," δημιουργοι , and the "rulers of the world," κοσμοκρατορες . The superior deities are, however, the real cause of all that exists; and from their fulness, from their πληρωμα , it derives its existence. The succession from the highest deities down to the lowest is not by a sudden descent, but by a continually graduating decrease from the highest, pure, and spiritual natures, down to those which are more substantial and material, which are the nearest related to the gross matter of the creation, and which consequently possess the property of acting upon it. In proportion to their purer quality, or coarser composition, they occupy different places as their residence, either in a denser atmosphere, or in higher regions. The highest among these classes of spirits are called αρχαι , or, αρχικον αιτιον <em> . </em> Others among the "divine natures," θειαι ουσιαι , are "intermediate beings," μεσαι . Those which occupy themselves with the laws of the world are also called αρχοντες , and "the ministering spirits" are δυναμεις and αγγελοι . The archangels are not generally recognized in this theory; this class is said to have been of a later origin, and to have been first introduced by Porphyry. ( See [[Archangel]] . ) If we take here also into consideration the εξουσιαι , of which Justin has before spoken, we shall have enumerated the greater part of the technical appellations of this demonology. But to arrive at a union with the higher orders of the spiritual world, in which alone the highest bliss of man consists, it is necessary, before all things, to become disengaged from the servitude of the body, which detains the soul from soaring up to the purely spiritual. Matrimony, therefore, and every inclination to sexual concupiscence, must be renounced before the attainment of this perfection. Hence, the offerings and initiations of the magi cannot, without great injury, be even communicated to those who have not as yet emancipated themselves from the <em> libido procreandi, </em> and the propensities to corporeal attachments. To eat meat, or to partake in general of any slain animal, nay, to even touch it, contaminates. [[Bodily]] exercises and purifications, though not productive of the gifts of prophecy, are nevertheless conducive to them. Though the gods only attend to the pure, they nevertheless sometimes mislead men to impure actions. This may perhaps proceed from the totally different ideas of that which is good and righteous, which subsist between them and mankind. </p> <p> <strong> 5. </strong> This philosophy of which the elements had already existed a long time in the east, formed itself, in its progress to the west, into a doctrinal system, which found there far more approbation and celebrity than it ever had deserved. It was principally welcome in those countries, to which the epistles of the Apostle are directed. When St. Paul had preached at Ephesus, a quantity of magical and theurgical books were brought forward by their possessors and burned before his eyes, &nbsp; Acts 19:19 . This city had long since been celebrated for them, and the ‘Εφεσια </p> <p> αλεξιφαρμακα and ‘Εφεσια γραμματα , were spells highly extolled by the ancients for the purpose of procuring an authority over the demons. As late even as the fourth century, the synod at [[Laodicea]] was obliged to institute severe laws against the worship of angels against magic, and against incantations. These opinions had taken such a deep root in the mind, that some centuries did not suffice for the extinction of the recollection of them. Now, there are passages in the Apostle which strikingly characterize this theory. He calls the doctrinal system of his opponents φιλοσοφια ου κατα Χριστον , "a philosophy incompatible with Christianity," &nbsp;Colossians 2:8; θρησκεια των αγγελων , "a worship of angels," &nbsp;Colossians 2:18; διδασκαλιαι δαιμονιων , "a demonology," &nbsp;1 Timothy 4:1 . He calls it still farther γοητεια , &nbsp;2 Timothy 3:13 . This is the peculiar expression by which the ancients denoted magical arts and necromantic experiments; γοης is, according to Hesychius, μαγος , κολαξ , περιεργος , and γοητευει , απατα μαγευει , φαρμακμευει , εξαιδει . 50. St. Paul compares these teachers to [[Jannes]] and Jambres, &nbsp;2 Timothy 3:8 . These two persons are, according to the ancient tradition, the magicians who withstood Moses by their arts. They were from time immemorial names so notorious in the magical science, that they did not remain unknown even to the Neo-Platonics. When the Apostle enjoins the Ephesians to array themselves in the arms of faith, and courageously to endure the combat, &nbsp;Ephesians 6:12 , he says that it is the more necessary, because their combat is not against human force, ου προς [not against] αιμα και σαρκα , "flesh and blood," but against superhuman natures. Where he mentions these, he enumerates in order the names of this magico-spiritual world, αρχας , εξουσιας , particularly the κοσμοκρατορας , "principalities," "powers," "rulers;" and likewise fixes their abode in the upper aerial regions, εις τον αερα εν τοις επουρανιοις . In like manner, in the [[Epistle]] to the Colossians, for the sake of representing to them Christianity in an exalted and important light, and of praising the divine nature of Jesus, he says, that all that exists is his creation, and is subjected to him, not even the spiritual world excepted. He then selects the philosophic appellations to demonstrate that this supposititious demonocracy is wholly subservient to him; whether they be θρονοι , or κυριοτητες , αρχαι εξουσιαι , [thrones, dominions, principalities, powers,] &nbsp;Colossians 1:16 . Finally, to destroy completely and decisively the whole doctrinal system, he demonstrates, that Christ, through the work of redemption, has obtained the victory over the entire spiritual creation, that he drags in triumph the αρχας [principalities] and εξουσιας [powers] as vanquished, and that henceforth their dominion and exercise of power have ceased, &nbsp;Colossians 2:15 . But what he says respecting the seared consciences of these heretics, respecting their deceptions, their avarice, &c, is certainly more applicable to this class of men, than to any other. None throughout all antiquity are more accused of these immoralities, than those pretended confidants of the occult powers. If he speaks warmly against any distinction of meats, against abstinence from matrimony, this also applies to them; and if he rejects bodily exercises, it was because they recommended them, because they imposed baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparations, as the conditions by which alone the connection with the spirits became possible. These, then, are the persons who passed before the Apostle's mind, and who, when they adopted Christianity, established that sect among the professors of Jesus, which gave to it the name of Gnostics, and which, together with the different varieties of this system, is accused by history of magical arts. </p> <p> Other adherents of this system among the Heathens, to which the Syrian philosophers, as well as some Egyptian, such as [[Plotinus]] and his scholars, belonged, formed the sect of Neo-Platonism. </p> <p> <strong> 6. </strong> But in the above remarks of this learned German, some considerations are wanting, necessary to the right understanding of several of the above passages quoted from St. Paul. The philosophic system above mentioned was built on the [[Scripture]] doctrine of good and evil angels, and so had a basis of truth, although abused to a gross superstition, and even idolatry. It was grounded, too, upon the notion of different orders among both good and evil spirits, with subordination and government; which also is a truth of which some intimation is given in Scripture. The Apostle then could use all these terms without giving any sanction to the errors of the day. He knew that the spiritual powers they had converted into subordinate deities, were either good or evil angels in their various ranks, and he uproots the whole superstition, by showing that the "thrones and dominions" of heaven are submissive created servants of Christ; and that the evil spirits, the rulers of "the darkness of this world," are put under his feet. </p>

<p> This word signifies sect or choice; it was not in its earliest acceptation conceived to convey any reproach, since it was indifferently used either of a party approved, or of one disapproved by the writer. </p> <p> See &nbsp;Acts 5:17; &nbsp;Acts 15:3 . [[Afterwards]] it was generally used to signify some fundamental error adhered to with obstinacy, &nbsp;2 Peter 2:1 . &nbsp;Galatians 5:20 . According to the laws of this kingdom, heresy consists in a denial of some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, publicly and obstinately avowed. It must be acknowledged, however, that particular modes of belief or unbelief, not tending to overturn Christianity, or to sap the foundations of morality, are by no means the object of coercion by the civil magistrate. What doctrines shall therefore be adjudged heresy, was left by our old constitution to the determination of the ecclesiastical judge, who had herein a most arbitrary latitude allowed him; for the general definition of an heretic, given by Lyndewode, extends to the smallest deviations from the doctrines of the holy church: "Haereticus est qui dubitat de fide Catholica, et qui negligit servare ea quae Romana ecclesia statuit, seu servare decreverat:" or, as the statute, 2 Hen. IV. cap. 15, expresses it in English, "teachers of erroneous opinions, contrary to the faith and blessed determinations of the holy church." </p> <p> Very contrary this to the usage of the first general councils, which defined all heretical doctrines with the utmost precision and exactness, and what ought to have alleviated the punishment, the uncertainty of the crime, seems to have enhanced it in those days of blind zeal and pious cruelty. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the Canonists, indeed, went, at first, no farther than enjoining penance, excommunication, and ecclesiastical deprivation, for heresy; but afterwards they proceeded boldly to imprisonment by the ordinary, and confiscation of goods in pios usus. But in the mean time they had prevailed upon the weakness of bigoted princes to make the civil power subservient to their purposes, by making heresy not only a temporal but even a capital offence; the Romish ecclesiastics determining, without appeal, whatever they pleased to be heresy, and shifting off to the secular arm the odium and drudgery of executions, with which they pretended to be too tender and delicate to intermeddle. Nay, they affected to intercede on behalf of the convicted heretic, well knowing that at the same time they were delivering the unhappy victim to certain death. </p> <p> See ACT OF FAITH. </p> <p> Hence the capital punishments inflicted on the ancient [[Donatists]] and [[Manichaeans]] by the emperors Theodosius and Justinian; hence, also, the constitution of the emperor Frederic, mentioned by Lyndewode, adjudging all persons, without distinction, to be burnt with fire, who were convicted of heresy by the ecclesiastical judge. The same emperor, in another constitution, ordained, that if any temporal lord, when admonished by the church, should neglect to clear his territories of heretics within a year, it should by lawful for good Catholics to seize and occupy the lands, and utterly to exterminate the heretical possessors. And upon this foundation was built that arbitrary power, so long claimed, and so fatally exerted by the pope, of disposing even of the kingdoms of refractory princes to more dutiful sons of the church. The immediate event of this constitution serves to illustrate at once the gratitude of the holy see, and the just punishment of the royal bigot; for, upon the authority of this very constitution, the pope afterwards expelled this very emperor Frederic from his kingdom of Sicily, and gave it to [[Charles]] of Anjou. </p> <p> Christianity being thus deformed by the daemon of persecution upon the continent, our own island could not escape its scourge. Accordingly we find a writ de haeretico comburendo, 1:e. of burning the heretic. </p> <p> See that article. But the king might pardon the convict by issuing only by the special direction of the king in council. In the reign of Henry IV. when the eyes of the Christian world began to open, and the seeds of the [[Protestant]] religion (under the opprobrious name of Lollardy) took root in this kingdom, the clergy, taking advantage from the king's dubious title to demand an increase of their own power, obtained an act of parliament, which sharpened the edge of persecution to its utmost keenness. </p> <p> See HAERETICO COMBURENDO. By statute 2 Henry V. 100: 7, Lollardy was also made a temporal offence, and indictable in the king's courts; which did not thereby gain an exclusive, but only a concurrent jurisdiction with the bishop's consistory. Afterwards, when the reformation began to advance, the power of the ecclesiastics was somewhat moderated; for though what heresy is was not then precisely defined, yet we are told in some points what it is not; the statute 25 Hen. VIII. 100: 14. declaring that offences against the see of Rome are not heresy; and the ordinary being thereby restrained from proceeding in any case upon mere suspicion; 1:e. unless the party be accused by two credible witnesses, or an indictment of heresy be first previously found in the king's courts of common law. </p> <p> And yet the spirit of persecution was not abated, but only diverted into a lay channel; for in six years afterwards, by stat. 31 Hen. VIII. 100: 14. the bloody law of the six articles was made, which were "determined and resolved by the most godly study, pain, and travail of his majesty; for which his most humble and obedient subjects, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons in parliament assembled, did render and give unto his highness their most high and hearty thanks." The same statute established a mixed jurisdiction of clergy and laity for the trial and conviction of heretics; Henry being equally intent on destroying the supremacy of the bishops of Rome, and establishing all their other corruptions of the Christian religion. Without recapitulating the various repeals and revivals of these sanguinary laws in the two succeeding reigns, we proceed to the reign of [[Queen]] Elizabeth, when the reformation was finally established with temper and decency, unsullied with party rancour or personal resentment </p> <p> By stat. 1. Eliz. 100: 1. all former statutes relating to heresy are repealed; which leaves the jurisdiction of heresy as it stood at common law, viz. as to the infliction of common censures in the ecclesiastical courts; and in case of burning the heretic, in the provincial synod only. Sir Matthew [[Hale]] is, indeed, of a different opinion, and holds that such power resided in the diocesan also: though he agrees that in either case the writ de haeretico comburendo was not demandable of common right, but grantable or otherwise merely at the king's discretion. But the principal point now gained was, that by this statute a boundary was for the first time set to what should be accounted heresy; nothing for the future being to be so determined, but only such tenets which have been heretofore so declared, </p> <p> 1. by the words of the canonical Scriptures; </p> <p> 2. by the first four general councils, or such others as have only used the words of the [[Holy]] Scriptures; or, </p> <p> 3. which shall hereafter be so declared by the parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation. Thus was heresy reduced to a greater certainty than before, though it might not have been the worse to have defined it in terms still more precise and particular; as a man continued still liable to be burnt for what, perhaps, he did not understand to be heresy, till the ecclesiastical judge so interpreted the words of the canonical Scriptures. For the writ de haeretico comburendo remained still in force, till it was totally abolished, and heresy again subjected only to ecclesiastical correction, pro salute animae, by stat. 29. Car. II. 100: 9; when, in one and the same reign, our lands were delivered from the slavery of military tenures; our bodies from arbitrary imprisonment by the habeas corpus act: and our minds from the tyranny of superstitious bigotry, by demolishing this last badge of persecution in the English law. </p> <p> Every thing is now less exceptionable, with respect to the spiritual cognizance and spiritual punishment of heresy; unless, perhaps, that the crime ought to be more strictly defined, and no prosecution permitted, even in the ecclesiastical courts, till the tenets in question are by proper authority previously declared to be heretical. Under these restrictions, some think it necessary, for the support of the national religion, that the officers of the church should have power to censure heretics; yet not to harass them with temporal penalties, much less to exterminate or destroy them. The legislature has, indeed, thought it proper that the civil magistrate should interpose with regard to one species of heresy, very prevalent in modern times; for by stat. 9. and 10. W. III. 100: 32. if any person, educated in the Christian religion, or professing the same, shall, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons in the Holy [[Trinity]] to be God, or maintain that there are more Gods than one, he shall undergo the same penalties and incapacities which were inflicted on apostasy by the same statute. Enc. Brit. Dr. [[Foster]] and Stebbing on Heresy; Hallett's Discourses, vol. 3: No. 9. p. 358, 408; Dr. Campbell's Prel. Dis. to the Gospels. </p>

<p> (αἵρεσις) </p> <p> The primary meaning of αἵρεσις is ‘taking,’ used especially of ‘taking a town’ (Herod. iv. 1). Its secondary meaning is ‘choice,’ ‘preference.’ From this it passes to ‘the thing chosen,’ and so ‘a plan,’ ‘a purpose.’ In later classical usage it comes to mean a philosophic school of thought, and hence a sect. </p> <p> In the passages in which the word occurs in the Acts, it has the meaning of a religious party, <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Acts 5:17 ἡ αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων; &nbsp;Acts 15:5; &nbsp;Acts 26:5 : κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος. Thus it is used of the [[Christians]] not by themselves but by others, <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Acts 24:5 : πρωτοστάτην τε τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως; and again, v. 14: κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἥν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν (see also &nbsp;Acts 28:22). In the [[Epistles]] it is used of the evil principle of party spirit, division, and self-assertion. Thus in &nbsp;Galatians 5:20 it is classed among the works of the flesh in company with ἐριθεῖαι and διχοστασίαι. In &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:18 f. St. Paul uses αἱρέσεις as the natural outcome of σχίσματα: ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω. δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἴνα οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. So that, bad though these things are, they may serve a providential purpose in testing men’s characters and showing those that can stand the test. </p> <p> These divisions destroyed the harmony of the Agape. The brotherly spirit which should have characterized the common meal was absent and the sacredness of the [[Communion]] was lost in general disorder. In this passage ‘heresy’ and ‘schism’ ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ) approach very nearly to becoming synonymous. </p> <p> As St. [[Augustine]] says: ‘Haeresis autem schisma inveteratum’ ( <i> c. Crescon. Don </i> . ii. 7). And Nevin quoted by [[Trench]] ( <i> NT Synonyms </i> 8, 1876, p. 359) says: ‘Heresy and schism are not indeed the same, but yet they constitute merely the different manifestations of one and the same disease. [[Heresy]] is theoretioschism: schism is practical heresy. They continually run into one another, and mutually complete each other. Every heresy is in principle schismatic; every schism is in its innermost constitution heretical.’ </p> <p> So far we have found no trace of αἵρεσις being used in connexion with false doctrine but simply with divisions and factious party spirit. But in &nbsp;2 Peter 2:1 a new meaning is introduced, and from the idea of a party or sect we pass to the principles and teaching which characterize the sect. αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας must refer to doctrines which lead to destruction; indeed the following words, ‘even denying the Lord that bought them,’ point to a specimen of such false teaching, implying either a rejection of Christ as the Son of God, or a denial of His redemptive work. As this Epistle was written at a much later date than the Acts, it marks the gradual transformation that was going on in the meaning of ‘heresy’ as it passed from party or sect, first to schism and finally to erroneous teaching. </p> <p> There is no trace in the NT of either αἵρεσις or σχίσμα denoting a party that had separated itself from the main body. [[Pharisees]] and [[Sadducees]] were sects in Judaism, not withdrawn from it. Such sects were, so to speak, recognized, not deprecated. Again, the parties in the [[Corinthian]] Church which called themselves after the names of Paul, Cephas, Apollos, and Christ were divisions in the Church, not separated from it. It was the harm done by strife and the absence of that spirit of unity and charity, which is the very essence of Christianity, that called for the Apostle’s rebukes. By the time that we pass into the sub-apostolic period, αἴρεσις connotes theological error and false teaching, and the sense of a sect or party gradually recedes till it passes away entirely. Two passages from [[Ignatius]] may be quoted in support of this: ὅτι πάντες κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ζῆτε καὶ ὅτι ἐν ὑμῖν οὐδεμὶα αἵρεσις κατοικεῖ ( <i> ad Eph. </i> vi.); and παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς … μόνῃ τῇ Χριστιανῇ τροφῇ χρῆσθε, ἀλλογρίας δὲ βοτάνης ἀπέχεσθε, ἤτις ἐστὶν αἴρεσις ( <i> ad Trall </i> . vi.). </p> <p> Morley Stevenson. </p>

<p> <strong> HERESY </strong> . The word ‘heresy’ (Gr. <em> hairesis </em> ) is never used in the NT in the technical sense in which we find it by the first quarter of the 2nd cent., as a doctrinal departure from the true faith of the Church, implying a separation from its communion. The usual NT meaning of <em> hairesis </em> is simply a party, school, or sect; and sect is the word by which it is most frequently rendered. In Acts this is the invariable use. Thus it is applied to the parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees (&nbsp; Acts 5:17 , &nbsp; Acts 15:5 , &nbsp; Acts 26:5 ), precisely as in Jos. [Note: Josephus.] ( <em> Ant </em> . XIII. v. 9). Similarly it is used of the followers of Christ, though not by themselves (&nbsp; Acts 24:5; &nbsp; Acts 24:14 , &nbsp; Acts 28:22 ). In &nbsp; Acts 24:14 St. Paul substitutes ‘the <strong> Way’ </strong> for his accusers’ term ‘a <strong> sect </strong> .’ The reason may partly have been that in his own usage <em> hairesis </em> , while still bearing the general sense of ‘party,’ had come to convey a reproach as applied to Christians. </p> <p> There was nothing that distressed St. Paul more than the presence of strife and party-feeling among his converts. The unity of the Church as the body of Christ was one of his ruling ideas (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:12 ff., &nbsp; Romans 12:5 , &nbsp; Ephesians 1:22 f., &nbsp; Ephesians 5:23 ff., &nbsp; Colossians 1:18; &nbsp; Colossians 1:24; &nbsp; Colossians 2:19 ); and the existence of factions, as fatal to the sense of unity, was strongly deprecated and condemned (&nbsp; Galatians 5:20 , &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 11:19; cf. ‘heretic,’ &nbsp; Titus 3:10 ). ‘Heresy’ was division or <strong> schism </strong> (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 shows that ‘heresy’ and ‘division’ [Gr. <em> schisma </em> ] were practically synonymous); and ‘schism’ was a rending or cleaving of the body of Christ (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 12:25; &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 12:27 ). It was not doctrinal aberration from the truth, however, but practical breaches of the law of brotherly love that the Apostle condemned under the name of ‘heresy’ (see esp., as illustrating this, &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 11:19 ff.). </p> <p> Outside of Acts and the [[Pauline]] Epp., <em> hairesis </em> is used in the NT only in &nbsp; 2 Peter 2:1 . In this, probably the latest of the NT writings, we see a marked advance towards the subsequent ecclesiastical meaning of the word. The ‘damnable (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘destructive’) heresies’ here spoken of spring not merely from a selfish and factious spirit, but from false teaching. As yet, however, there seems to be no thought of the existence of heretical bodies outside of the general Christian communion. The heresies are false teachings (v. 1) leading to ‘licentious doings’ (v. 2), but they are ‘brought in,’ says the writer, ‘among you.’ </p> <p> J. C. Lambert. </p>

<i> choice </i> <p> The word had a similar usage in Jewish writings. Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century from whom we learn much of what we know about the Judaism of New [[Testament]] times, used the word to refer to the various Jewish parties (or schools of thought) such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Jewish rabbis employed the term in a bad sense applying it to groups who had separated from the main stream of Jewish teaching. </p> <p> The word has several usages in the New Testament, but never has the technical sense of “heresy” as we understand it today. It may be classified as follows: </p> <p> 1. Most frequently, especially in Acts, it has the same meaning as Josephus. In &nbsp;Acts 5:17 , &nbsp;Acts 15:5; and &nbsp;Acts 26:5 , where it refers to the Pharisees and Sadducees, it simply means party or sect. </p> <p> 2. In &nbsp;Acts 24:14 and &nbsp; Acts 28:22 it is used in a slightly derogatory sense, referring to Christians as they were viewed to be separatists or sectarians by the Jews. This usage conforms to that of the rabbis. </p> <p> 3. Paul used the term to refer to groups which threatened the harmonious relations of the church. In &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:19 , where he was writing about the disgraceful way in which the Corinthians were observing the Lord's Supper, the word has to do with the outward manifestations of the factions he mentioned in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:18 . In &nbsp;Galatians 5:20 , it is one of the works of the flesh and is in a grouping including strife, seditions, and envyings. It apparently has to do with people who choose to place their own desires above the fellowship of the church. &nbsp;Titus 3:10 speaks of a man who is a heretic. Since the context of the verse has to do with quarreling and dissension, the idea in this passage seems to be that of a fractious person. </p> <p> 4. In &nbsp;2 Peter 2:1 it comes closest to our meaning of the term. It clearly refers to false prophets who have denied the true teaching about Christ. Since the remainder of &nbsp; 2 Peter 2:1 refers to the immoral living of the false prophets, the word also refers to their decadent living. The reference to the heretic in &nbsp; Titus 3:10 may belong to this category since the verse mentions disputes about genealogies, a doctrinal matter. </p> <p> It is clear that in the New Testament, the concept of heresy had more to do with fellowship within the church than with doctrinal teachings. While the writers of the New Testament were certainly concerned about false teachings, they apparently were just as disturbed by improper attitudes. </p> <p> In the writings of Ignatius, a leader of the church in the early second century, the word takes on the technical meaning of a heresy. Most frequently in the writings of the early church fathers, the heresy about which they were concerned was Gnosticism, a teaching which denied that Jesus was fully human. See Christology; Error; [[Gnosticism]] . </p> <p> W. T. Edwards, Jr. </p>

<div> '''1: αἵρεσις ''' (Strong'S #139 — Noun [[Feminine]] — hairesis — hah'ee-res-is ) </div> <p> denotes (a) "a choosing, choice" (from haireomai, "to choose"); then, "that which is chosen," and hence, "an opinion," especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, &nbsp;Galatians 5:20 (marg., "parties"); such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage; see &nbsp; 2 Peter 2:1 , where "destructive" (RV) signifies leading to ruin; some assign even this to (b); in the papyri the prevalent meaning is "choice" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocab.); (b) "a sect;" this secondary meaning, resulting from (a), is the dominating significance in the NT, &nbsp;Acts 5:17; &nbsp;15:5; &nbsp;24:5,14; &nbsp;26:5; &nbsp;28:22; "heresies" in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:19 (see marg.). See Sect. </p>

<p> '''Heresy.''' &nbsp;Acts 24:14, A. V. This term, as generally used by the sacred writers, signifies a party or division, R. V. "a sect." It is derived from a word meaning "to choose." The Pharisees, &nbsp;Acts 15:5; &nbsp;Acts 26:5, and the Sadducees, &nbsp;Acts 5:17, as well as the Nazarenes, &nbsp;Acts 24:5; &nbsp;Acts 24:12; &nbsp;Acts 24:14, were denominated heresies. In these passages the word is translated "sects." In &nbsp;Acts 24:14, where Paul speaks of the Christian religion as "the way which they call heresy," he undoubtedly means to imply that the Christian organization was not a separation from the Old Testament Church, but the true Church itself. In &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:19; &nbsp;Galatians 5:20, and &nbsp;2 Peter 2:1 heresies are referred to in connection with the apostolic Church, and in the last two cases the implication is that they are departures from the fundamental truth of the gospel, and to be condemned. Early in the history of the Christian Church the word acquired the signification it now has, of a departure from the fundamentals of gospel truth. </p>

<p> HER'ESY, n. Gr. to take, to hold L. haeresis. </p> 1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The [[Scriptures]] being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians,may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage,heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach. 2. Heresy, in law, is an offense against christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained. 3. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics.

<p> ''''' her´e ''''' - ''''' si ''''' , ''''' her´ē̇ ''''' - ''''' si ''''' ( αἵρεσις , <i> ''''' haı́resis ''''' </i> , from verb αἱρέω , <i> ''''' hairéō ''''' </i> , "to choose"): The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into common usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament, except as implied in one passage. In classical Greek, it may be used either in a good or a bad sense, first, simply for "choice," then, "a chosen course of procedure," and afterward of various schools and tendencies. [[Polybius]] refers to those devoting themselves to the study of Greek literature as given to the <i> ''''' Hellenikḗ haı́resis ''''' </i> ̌ . It was used not simply for a teaching or a course followed, but also for those devoting themselves to such pursuit, namely, a sect, or assembly of those advocating a particular doctrine or mode of life. Thus, in Acts, the word is used in the Greek, where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "sect," "sect of the Sadducees" (&nbsp; Acts 5:17 ), "sect of the Nazarenes" (&nbsp;Acts 24:5 ). In &nbsp;Acts 26:5 the Pharisees are called "the straitest <i> '''''hairesis''''' </i> (sect)." The name was applied contemptuously to Christianity (&nbsp;Acts 24:14; &nbsp;Acts 28:22 ). Its application, with censure, is found in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:19 margin; &nbsp; Galatians 5:20 margin, where it is shown to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that belong to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against. Ellicott, on &nbsp; Galatians 5:20 , correctly defines "heresies" (King James Version, the English Revised Version) as "a more aggravated form of <i> '''''dichostası́a''''' </i> " (the American Standard Revised Version "parties") "when the divisions have developed into distinct and organized parties"; so also &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:19 , translated by the Revised Version (British and American) "factions." In &nbsp;2 Peter 2:1 , the transition toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The "destructive heresies" (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin "sects of perdition") are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church. </p> <p> In the fixed ecclesiastical sense that it ultimately attained, it indicated not merely any doctrinal error, but "the open espousal of fundamental error" (Ellicott on &nbsp;Titus 3:10 ), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders. Roman Catholics, regarding all professed Christians who are not in their communion as heretics, modify their doctrine on this point by distinguishing between Formal and terial Heresy, the former being unconscious and unintentional, and between different degrees of each of these classes ( <i> Cath. Encyclopedia </i> , VII, 256ff). For the development of the ecclesiastical meaning, see Suicer's <i> Thesaurus [[Ecclesiasticus]] </i> , I, 119-23. </p>