Heresy And Schism
Cannot be a Heretic And Schismatic
It may be worthwhile to say a little about heresy and schism.
A Moslem isn’t and can’t be either a heretic or a schismatic to a Christian; and if anyone leaves the Christian faith and joins Islam, that doesn’t make him a heretic or a schismatic — it makes him an apostate and an infidel.
This is entirely uncontroversial.
Shows that men of different religions can’t be heretics or schismatics ·relative· to one another. What we have to look into, then, is ·how the concepts of heresy and schism work about men who are of the same religion. It’s clear those who have the very same rule of faith and worship have the same religion, and those whose faith and worship are different belong to different religions. That is because everything that belongs to that religion is contained in that rule so that those who have the same rule belong to the same religion and those who haven’t don’t. Thus Moslems and Christians are of different religions because Christians take the Holy Scriptures as the rule of their religion, and Moslems take the Koran. And by that criterion, there can be different religions amongst Christians. Papists and Lutherans, though both profess faith in Christ and are therefore called ‘Christians’ are not of the same religion, because Lutherans acknowledge only the Holy Scriptures as the rule and foundation of their religion, while Papists have as their rule not only the Holy Scriptures but also traditions and the decrees of Popes. . . .
WHAT HERESY IS· From this it follows •that heresy is a split in ecclesiastical communion between men who have the same religion but differ on some doctrine that isn’t contained in the rule ·that defines the religion·; and •that among those who recognize only the Holy Scriptures as their rule of faith, heresy is a split in their Christian communion concerning doctrines that aren’t explicitly contained in Scripture. This split ·among Christians· can happen in either of two ways. (1) It happens when the greater part of the church — or the stronger part (thanks to the magistrate’s patronage) — separates itself from the rest, excluding them from the church’s communion because they refuse to declare their belief in certain opinions that aren’t explicitly stated in Scripture.
What makes a group heretical is not the smallness of their numbers or the authority of the magistrate.
Someone is a heretic if is it he who based on such opinions divides the church into parts, introduces names and marks of distinction, deliberately creates a split because of those opinions. [Locke is saying, then, that in the situation described at the start of this paragraph it is the bigger or stronger faction that is heretical, not the remainder.] (2) Heresy occurs when someone separates himself from the communion of a church because the church doesn’t publicly profess certain opinions that the Holy Scriptures don’t teach. Both this — · the group and the individual· — are heretics because they are wrong about fundamentals, and obstinately go against prudence and knowledge. When they specified that the Holy Scriptures were to be the only foundation of faith, they also gave a fundamental status to certain propositions that are not in Scripture, and because others won’t accept these additional opinions of theirs as necessary and fundamental, they create a split in the church either (2) by withdrawing from it or (1) by expelling others from it.
If they are drawn up in the words of Scripture, there can be no question about them.
Christians acknowledge those things as being divinely inspired and therefore fundamental. But if you (·I’m speaking to a heretic now·) say ·only· that the items you want to be professed are consequences of what is in Scripture, I say believing and professing things that seem to you agreeable to the rule of faith — well done! but trying to force those things down the throats of people who don’t see them as indubitable Scriptural doctrines — not well done! To create a split because of things like these, which aren’t and can’t be fundamental, is to be a heretic. I don’t think that any man is so lunatic as to dare to hawk his consequences and interpretations of Scripture as ‘divine inspirations’ and to put •the articles of faith that he has constructed on a par with •the authority of Scripture. I know some propositions are so agreeable to Scripture that they can’t be denied to be consequences of it, and there can’t be any difference of opinion about those. ·And just for that reason, they aren’t relevant to our present topic of heresy, where by definition there always is a difference of opinion.
Returning now to that topic (and again I am addressing the heretic)·
However clearly it seems to you that something-or-other follows from Scripture, you shouldn’t force it on others because you believe it to be agreeable to the rule of faith — or not unless you think it would be fair enough for other doctrines to be imposed on you in the same way. That would involve you in having to accept and profess all the different and contradictory opinions of Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, and so on — opinions which the manufacturers of symbols, systems, and confessions pass out to their followers as genuine and necessary deductions from the Holy Scripture. I’m amazed at the brash arrogance of men who think that they can explain things necessary to salvation more clearly than the Holy Ghost, the eternal and infinite wisdom of God.
WHAT SCHISM IS· So much for •heresy, a word that in common usage is applied only to the doctrinal part of religion. Let us now consider •schism. This is a crime like heresy, for both these words seem to me to signify an ill-grounded split in ecclesiastical communion, arising from things that are not necessary ·to the faith·. But ordinary usage, which determines what is correct in language, has determined that •heresy relates to errors in faith and •schism to errors in worship or discipline; so I am following that distinction. Schism, then. . . .is a split made in the communion of a church because of something in divine worship or ecclesiastical discipline that is not a necessary part of the faith.
Nothing in worship or church discipline can be necessary to Christian.
Communion apart from what was commanded, in so many words, by Christ our legislator or by the Apostles ·speaking· under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What I say is this: Someone who doesn’t deny anything that the Holy Scriptures teach explicitly, and doesn’t create a split because of something that isn’t contained in the sacred text — whatever label any sect of Christians slap on him.
