for, or warning 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. So Paul's words to the Corinthians were understood by Chrysostom and other ancient expositors. In both applications, however, the radical import of the word is the same.

αἱρεσεις.

8. But even here it has no necessary reference to the doctrine, true or false. Let us attend to the first passage in which it occurs in the Epistles, and we shall be fully satisfied of the truth of this remark. It follows one quoted in Part III. of this Dissertation. "For there must be also heresies among you," 1 Cor. xi. 19, Aɛl γαρ και αἱρεσεις εν ύμιν ειναι. Ye must also have sects amongst you. It is plain, that what he reproves under the name oxioμara in the former verse, is in effect the same with what he here denominates alpeσuç. Now, the term axioua I have shown already to have there no relation to any erroneous tenet, but solely to undue regards to some individual teachers, to the prejudice of others, and of the common cause. In another passage of this Epistle, (chap. iii. 3,) where, speaking of the very same reprehensible conduct, he uses the words strife and factions, Epiç Kaι dixоoтaσial, words nearly coincident with σχισματα και αίρεσεις, his whole aim in these reprehensions is well expressed in these words, "that ye might learn in us," (that is, in himself and Apollos, whom he had named for example's sake,) "not to think of men above that which is written," above what Scripture warrants, "that no one of you be puffed up for one," make your boast of one "against another," chap. iv. 6.

9. It may be said, Does not this explanation represent the two words schism and heresy as synonymous? That there is a great affinity in their signification is manifest; but they are not convertible terms. I do not find that the word oxioua is ever applied in holy writ to a formed party, to which the word aipeous is commonly applied. I understand them in the Epistles of this apostle, as expressive of different degrees of the same evil. An undue attachment to one part, and a consequent alienation of affection from another part of the Christian community, comes under the denomination of axioua. When this disposition has proceeded so far as to produce an actual party or faction among them, this effect is termed aiperiç. And it has been remarked, that even this term was at that time currently applied, when matters had not come to an open rupture and separation in point of communion. There was no appearance of this at the time referred to among the Corinthians. And even in Judaism, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the two principal sects, nay, the only sects mentioned in the Gospel, and (which is still more extraordinary) more widely different in their religious sentiments than any two Christian sects, still joined together, as was but just now observed, in all the offices of religious service, and had neither different

priests and ministers, nor separate places for social worship, the reading of the law, or the observance of the ordinances.

10. It will perhaps be said, that, in the use at least which the apostle Peter has made of this word, it must be understood to include some gross errors, subversive of the very foundations of the faith. The words in the common version are, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction," 2 Pet. ii. 1. That the apostle in this passage foretels that there will arise such aipɛouc, sects or factions, as will be artfully and surreptitiously formed by teachers who will entertain such pernicious doctrines, is most certain; but there is not the least appearance that this last character was meant to be implied in the word aipeous: So far from it, that this character is subjoined as additional information concerning, not the people seduced, or the party, but the seducing teachers; for it is of them only (though one would judge differently from our version) that what is contained in the latter part of the verse is affirmed. The words in the original are, Ev ύμιν εσονται ψευδοδιδασκαλοι, οίτινες παρεισαξουσιν αἱρεσεις απω λειας, και τον αγορασαντα αυτους δεσποτην αρνούμενοι, επαγοντες ἑαυτοις ταχινην απωλειαν. Observe it is αρνουμένοι and επαγοντες, in the masculine gender and nominative case, agreeing with feudodδασκαλοι; not αρνούμενας and επαγουσας, in the feminine gender and accusative case, agreeing with aipeσeç. Again, if the word aipeσus did not imply the effect produced, sects or factions, but the opinions taught, whether true or false, which are often, not always, the secret spring of division, he would probably have expressed himself in this manner, ψευδοδιδασκαλοι οίτινες διδάξουσι αἱρεσεις arwλeas, who will teach damnable, or rather destructive heresies: for doctrine of every kind, sound and unsound, true and false, is properly said to be taught; but neither here, nor any-where else in Scripture, I may safely add, nor in any of the writings of the two first centuries, do we ever find the word aipeoic construed with Sidaσкw, kηovσow, or any word of like import; or an opinion, true or false, denominated aiptolç. There are, therefore, two distinct and separate evils in those false teachers, of which the apostle here gives warning. One is, their making division, by forming to themselves sects or parties of adherents; the other is, the destructive principles they will entertain, and doubtless, as they find occasion, disseminate among their votaries.

11. The only other passage in which the word aipeσis occurs in the New Testament, is where Paul numbers aipeσeiç, sects, among the works of the flesh, Gal. v. 20, and very properly subjoins them to dixooraoiai, factions, as the word ought to be rendered, according to the sense in which the apostle always uses it. Such distinctions and divisions among themselves, he well knew, could

not fail to alienate affection and infuse animosity. Hence we may learn to understand the admonition of the apostle, "A man that is a heretic,” aiρetikov av≈ρwTоv, "after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself," Tit. iii. 10, 11. It is plain from the character here given, as well as from the genius of the language, that the word aiperkoç in this place does not mean a member of an aipɛous or sect, who may be unconscious of any fault, and so is not equivalent to our word sectary; much less does it answer to the English word heretic, which always implies one who entertains opinions in religion, not only erroneous but pernicious: whereas we have shown that the word aipɛouc, in scriptural use, has no necessary connexion with opinion at all; its immediate connexion is with division or dissension, as it is thereby that sects and parties are formed. Αἱρετικος ανθρωπος must therefore mean one who is the founder of a sect, or at least has the disposition to create aipeous, or sects, in the community, and may properly be rendered a factious man. This version perfectly coincides with the scope of the place, and suits the uniform import of the term aipeous, from which it is derived. The admonition here given to Titus is the same, though differently expressed, with what he had given to the Romans, when he said, "Mark them which cause divisions," dixoσTaσias TOLOVVтaç, make parties or faction, "and avoid them," Rom. xvi. 17. As far down indeed as the fifth century, and even lower, error alone, however gross, was not considered as sufficient to warrant the charge of heresy. Malignity, or perverseness of disposition, was held essential to this crime. Hence the famous adage of Augustine, "Errare possum, hæreticus esse nolo;" which plainly implies, that no error in judgment on any article, of what importance soever, can make a man a heretic, where there is not pravity of will. To this sentiment even the schoolmen have shown regard in their definitions. "Heresy," say they, "is an opinion maintained with obstinacy against the doctrine of the church." But if we examine a little their reasoning on the subject, we shall quickly find the qualifying phrase, maintained with obstinacy, to be mere words, which add nothing to the sense; for if what they account the church have declared against the opinion, a man's obstinacy is concluded from barely maintaining the opinion, in what way soever he maintain it, or from what motives soever he be actuated. Thus mere mistake is made at length to incur the reproach originally levelled against an aspiring factious temper, which would sacrifice the dearest interests of society to its own ambition.

12. I cannot omit taking notice here by the way, that the late Dr. Foster, an eminent English dissenting minister, in a sermon he preached on this subject, has, in my opinion, quite mistaken the import of the term. He had the discernment to discover,

that the characters annexed would not suit the common acceptation of the word heretic; yet he was so far misled by that acceptation as to think that error in doctrine must be included as part of the description, and therefore defined a heretic in the apostle's sense, "a person who, to make himself considerable, propagates false and pernicious doctrine, knowing it to be such." Agreeably to this notion, the anonymous English translator renders, with his usual freedom, ἁμαρτάνει ων αυτοκατακριτος, “ knows in his own conscience that his tenets are false.' To Foster's explanation there are insuperable objections. First, it is not agreeable to the rules of criticism to assign, without any evidence from use, a meaning to a concrete term which does not suit the sense of the abstract. Aipsoiç is the abstract, aipɛrukos the concrete. If aiperiç could be shown, in one single instance, to mean the profession and propagation of opinions not believed by him who professes and propagates them, I should admit that aiρETIKOS might denote the professor or propagator of such opinions. But it is not pretended that aipeous in any use, scriptural, classical, or ecclesiastical, ever bore that meaning: there is therefore a strong probability against the sense given by that author to the word aiρETIKOç. Secondly, this word, though it occurs but once in Scripture, is very common in ancient Christian writers; but has never been said, in any one of them, to bear the meaning which the Doctor has here fixed upon it. Thirdly, the apostolical precept, in this way explained, is of little or no use. Who can know whether a man's belief in the opinions professed by him be sincere or hypocritical? Titus, you may say, had the gift of discerning spirits, and therefore might know. Was, then, the precept after his lifetime, or even after the ceasing of miraculous powers, to be of no service to the church? This I think incredible, especially as there is no other direction in the chapter, or even in the Epistle, which requires a supernatural gift to enable men to follow. To what purpose enjoin us to avoid a heretic, if it be impossible without a miracle to know him? In fine, though I would not say that such a species of hypocrisy as Foster makes essential to the character has never appeared, I am persuaded it very rarely appears. It is the natural tendency of vanity and ambition to make a man exert himself in gaining proselytes to his own notions, however trifling, and however rashly taken up; but it is not a natural effect of this passion to be zealous in promoting opinions which the promoter does not believe, and to the propagation of which he has no previous inducement from interest. It is sufficient to vindicate the application of the term avтoкATAKρITоç, or self-condemned, that a factious or turbulent temper, like any other vicious disposition, can never be attended with peace of mind, but, in spite of all the influence of self-deceit, which is not greater in regard to this than in regard to other vices, must, for the mortal wounds it gives to peace and

love, often be disquieted by the stings of conscience. In short, the aiρETIKOS, when that term is applied to a person professing Christianity, is the man who, either from pride or from motives of ambition or interest, is led to violate these important precepts of our Lord: Ὑμεις δε μη κληθητε ῥαββι· εἷς γαρ εστιν ὑμωη ὁ διδασκαλος, ὁ Χριτος. μηδε κληθητε καθηγηται· εἰς γαρ ύμων ετιν ó ka‡nyníns, & Xoisos: which I render thus-" But as for you, assume not the title of rabbi; for ye have only one teacher, the Messiah: neither assume the title of leaders; for ye have only one leader, the Messiah," Matt. xxiii. 8, 10.

13. It deserves further to be remarked, that in the early ages of the church, after the finishing of the canon, the word ȧOETIKOÇ was not always limited (as the word heretic is in modern use) to those who, under some form or other, profess Christianity. We at present invariably distinguish the heretic from the infidel. The first is a corrupter of the Christian doctrine, of which he professes to be a believer and friend; the second, a declared unbeliever of that doctrine, and consequently an enemy: whereas, in the times I speak of, the head of a faction in religion or in ethics, (for the term seems not to have been applied at first to the inferior members,) the founder, or at least the principal promoter of a sect or party, whether within or without the church that is, whether of those who called themselves the disciples of Christ, or of those who openly denied him, was indiscriminately termed αἱρετικος.

Our not attending to this difference in the ancient application of the word, has given rise to some blunders and apparent contradictions in ecclesiastic history; in consequence of which the early writers have been unjustly charged with confusion and inconsistency in their account of things; when, in fact, the blunders imputed to them by more modern authors have arisen solely from an ignorance of their language. We confine their words by an usage of our own, which, though it came gradually to obtain some ages afterwards, did not obtain in their time. Hence Dositheus, Simon Magus, Menander, and some others, are commonly ranked among the ancient heretics; though nothing can be more evident, from the accounts given by the most early writers who so denominate them, than that they were deniers of Jesus Christ in every sense, and avowed opposers to the gospel. Dositheus gave himself out to his countrymen the Samaritans, for the Messiah promised by Moses. Simon Magus, as we learn from holy writ, (Acts viii. 13,) was baptized; but that, after the rebuke which he received from Peter, instead of repenting, he apostatized, the uniform voice of antiquity puts beyond a question. Origen says expressly,+"The Simonians by no means acknowledge * Orig. adv. Cels. lib. 1.

† Ουδαμως τον Ιησουν ὁμολογουσι υἱον Θεου Σιμωνιανοι, αλλα δυναμιν Θεου λεγουσι τον Zipora. Orig. adv. Cels. lib. v.