|
How
Division Arose
The
members of the Apostolic church were "of one heart
and of one Soul, (Acts 4: 32). On the day of Pentecost
"they were all with one accord in one place."
Perfect unity of spirit flowered into complete organic
unity in that glorious era which has always and rightly
been esteemed as the church's golden age.
Inasmuch as many
Christians believe that divisions are so necessarily
inevitable as to make them practically the will of God,
judging from the standpoint of his providence in history,
it will be worth our while to glance briefly at the origin
of divisions in the historic church in order to observe
how really unnecessary they actually were—or at least
how unnecessary they would have been granted only a
reasonable desire to preserve the unity of Christ's flock
in the bonds of peace.
The student of church
history is likely to be puzzled with such a profusion of
sects and heresies as actually to bewilder him and create
the impression that division and not unity is the root and
principle of the Christian spirit. This is largely surface
manifestation, however. In ancient times the heresies were
not nearly so conspicuous as their prominence in history
would seem to indicate. They occupy a large space in
history on the same theory that robbery and murder hold a
large place in the newspaper—because they were the
unusual. The newspapers in a large city may devote very
much space to a murder; but one would be a poor judge of
appearances who should suppose therefore that the large
majority of the population are murderers.
The apostolic church
retained its primitive, visible unity for upwards of three
hundred years. It is possible to make this statement in
spite of the fact that there were many heresies as these
heresies were not divisions among the Christian churches
and believers but radical and subversive departures from
the essence of the Christian faith. On this point we have
the witness of the great church historian, Dr. Philip
Schaff, who says: " The chief ante-Nicene heresies
were undoubtedly radical perversions of Christian truth
and admitted of no kind of compromise. Ebionism,
Gnosticism, and Manichaeism were essentially
anti-Christian. The church could not tolerate that medley
of pagan sense and nonsense without endangering its very
existence" (History of the Christian Church, vol. II,
p. 515).
While the church has been
like an army marching through history assailed on its
flank and sides by almost constant attacks of heresy and
schism, it is a simple matter of fact to say that the
first grand division in historic Christianity came between
the two communions which at the present time stress their
descent from the Apostolic church and likewise their
orthodoxy and catholicity, that is, the Eastern Orthodox
Church, officially known as the Holy Oriental Orthodox
Apostolic Church, on the one hand, and the Roman Catholic
Church on the other.
Roman Catholic apologists
lay the charge against Protestantism of breaking the
historic unity of the church; therefore it needs to be
well known that it was these two ancient organizations
which first rent asunder the structure of historic
Christianity between them.
There were many causes of
irritation which gradually accumulated between these
communions throughout the ages. Each remonstrated against
the abuses of the other and poured crimination and
recrimination on each other's heads. But the principal
cause of their division was a bitter quarrel over the use
of the word "filioque," which is a Latin word
meaning "and the Son."
Under the stress of their
violent reaction against the unitarianism of the Arians,
who denied the deity of the Christ, the Western church had
gradually added the words "and from the Son" to
that part of the Nicene Creed which declares the Holy
Ghost to proceed from the Father. The quarrel over this
one word in the creed raged for centuries. Finally on July
16,1054, the Papal legates placed upon the altar of the
Greek cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople the
sentence of excommunication against the heads of the
Oriental church: "Let them be Anathema Maranatha,
with Simoniacs, Valerians, Donatists, Nicolaitans,
Leverians, Pneumatomchi, Manichus, and Nazarenes, and with
all heretics: yea, with the devil and his angels: Amen,
Amen, Amen. " The Christians upon whom this terrible
imprecation was pronounced did not at all lose heart but
officially responded in like spirit: " The devil be
with you; the Lord is with us. "
The evil and divisive
effects of the ecclesiastical creeds are well illustrated
by this historic example. The whole of organic Christendom
was divided and rended utterly asunder by the one word
"filioque" added to the creed by the Western
church. It will be said that there is a deep philosophical
and theological meaning lying behind that little word.
This I am well aware of through long years of acquaintance
with the controversy; but I maintain that that controversy
centers upon a point not clearly revealed by the Word of
God. It concerns a delicate spiritual factor entirely
beyond the reach of the most refined intellectual methods
and instruments. It is a question not fundamental to
Christianity about which Christians may differ in opinion
or concerning which they may be indifferent; or even
change their opinion.
The famous Roman Catholic
theologian, Dr. Dollinger, of Munich, once the ablest
advocate of Roman Catholicism in Europe, was by virtue of
his denominational affiliations, a believer in the "filioque"
of the Roman Catholic Church; but when in 1870 the Vatican
Council sanctioned the doctrine of papal infallibility,
Dr. Dollinger protested so forcibly that he was
excommunicated. Five years later he presided over the Old
Catholic conference in Bonn which denied the doctrine of
" filioque. " Dr. Dollinger was a great scholar;
but it is very doubtful if he ever felt sure enough of his
ground to reach an independent judgment of his own on the
subject. He could declare for it or against it, just as
his confreres might wish, with perfect indifference,
knowing that the allwise God would not condemn a man for
an involuntary error, or rather a lack of knowledge on
such an obscure question as that.
Personally I have known
godly persons very much used of the Holy Spirit in his
great work of healing the souls of men who never in their
lives once heard of the "filioque" controversy;
and who would not be able to give an opinion as to whether
the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father
"and the Son" or only from the Father; or even
whether he "proceeds" from either in the
metaphysical sense signified by the ancient creeds. Upon
such a far-fetched and trifling quibble does the major
division in Christendom depend!
Doubtless it will be said
that there were grave abuses on both sides which mutually
justified division. Granted that both these old communions
harbored grave abuses, yet the fact remains that the
division never cured any of them.
It must always be so when
Christians write a denominational creed to protect the
truth which it is the business of the Word and the Spirit
of God to pro. sect, the effect is divisive of true
Christians; and the tendency is exclusive and sectarian
instead of generous and brotherly.
In Second Samuel the
sixth chapter we read of how the Israelites were moving
the ark, "And when they came to Nachon's
threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of
God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the
anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah:; and God
smote him there for his error; and there he died" (vss.
6 and 7).
Often have stumbled the
poor, clumsy oxen whose business it is to draw God's cart
through this world, bearing the precious ark of the
Christian faith. But the zealous Uzzahs of Christendom
have been even more anxious and unbelieving than he; for
they have even foreseen that the oxen would stumble and
have placed the cold, dead hands of ancient bishops and
theologians upon it forever to hold it from falling, as
they suppose, but in reality forever to hold it from going
forward and also forever to profane by human authority
that which is alone the prerogative of the omnipotent Head
of the church.
The sixteenth century is
preeminently the age of division. In spite of the
sacredness of Christian unity I think that Luther and the
reformers were fully justified in breaking from the
ancient church. So many insufferable abuses had grown up
that a condition had developed—as is sometimes
possible— which made division imperative for the sake of
the higher spiritual values. Strictly speaking the unity
of the Roman Church, being a corporate human organization
union merely, had ceased actually to be the unity of the
body of Christ; and therefore to violate it was not only
excusable but meritorious.
Nevertheless there was
much confusion of thought upon this point among the
reformers; so that they finally came to neglect if not
despise the value of organic unity in the Christian
church.
Casual readers of the
reformation story are liable to overlook the fact that the
Reformation had two widely different aspects. There was
first the official and political group which received the
sanction of the princes and the magistrates, and drew to
itself the so-called better class, socially, of the
people. This is the group we read most about, the class to
which Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, and Zwingli and
Calvin in Switzerland, belonged.
But there was another
aspect. Everywhere there sprang up earnest souls from
among the common people who yearned to see a restoration
of the apostolic church. These were mostly working people
from the lower walks of life; although they were often
joined by the best scholars of the age. But they neither
had nor sought the approval of the princes; and as a
result they were dubbed with the opprobrious name of Ana-baptists
and persecuted even by the Protestants with a merciless
rigor absolutely appalling. The princely party martyred
these humble servants of Christ first and then blackened
their memory with despicable falsehoods.
Doubtless it is quite
true that many fanatics and extremists sprang up in that
stormy age; but it is quite correct to say that there was
a sober element very widespread who passionately desired
to go all the. way back to New Testament Christianity.
Both in Switzerland and in Germany the aristocratic party
among the Protestants refused to take this extreme step.
Wantonly and needlessly they divided from these lowly
servants of Christ everywhere; and not content with
violating the precious unity of the faith they went
further and violated the principles of humanity and mercy
by vigorous persecution.
Any attempt at a recital
of the details of this division would lead us far afield,
and into many controversies, as the historical matters
involved touch on questions bitterly fought over in the
past. It is much easier to trace the division between the
leaders of the aristocratic party. Surely it would seem
they ought to be able to work in unity. But such was not
the case.
The division in official
Protestantism arose over questions concerning the Lord's
Supper. The ancient Roman Church had taught the doctrine
of the real Presence in the elements of the eucharist,
that is, that the whole substance of the bread and of the
wine are changed by the priest's act of consecration into
the actual body and blood, and soul and divinity, of Jesus
Christ.
Zwingli swung clear away
from this view to the position that the bread and wine of
the Lord's Supper are merely symbols of the presence of
Christ. Luther could not go so far as the Roman Church. He
paused about half way between its doctrine and that of the
Swiss reformers, holding that there is " A real and
substantial presence of the very body and blood of Christ
which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered on the
cross, in, with, and under, the elements of bread and
wine, and the oral manducation of both substances by all
communicants, unworthy and unbelieving, as well as worthy
and believing, though with opposite effects" (History
Christian Church, Schaff, vol. VI, pp. 669-670). This
presence of Christ in the emblems of the supper was
described as " a sacramental, supernatural,
incomprehensible union" (idem).
The present writer has no
intention to try to explain an incomprehensible doctrine
at all, nor to take side with persons who debate matters
admittedly far above human understanding. lie would say,
however, that it seems too bad, even after the passage of
four hundred years, that the foremost leaders of the
reformation should have violently split asunder over an
incomprehensible doctrine.
Unquestionably, however,
they did just that. In the autumn of 1529, on invitation
of Philip Land of Hesse,, Luther and Zwingli, with their
associates and friends on both sides, met at Marburg for a
discussion of their differences. The colloquy continued
many days, during which the breach seemed to widen. At
last Philip, the layman, strove as many laymen have since,
to bring peace and unity between the leaders of the
church. " The landgrave toiled earnestly at the union
. . . He invited the theologians one after another into
his closet; he pressed, entreated, warned, exhorted, and
conjured them. 'Think,' said he, 'of the salvation of the
Christian republic, and remove all discord from its
bosom." Never had general at the head of an army
taken such pains to win a battle" (D'Aubigne's
History of the Reformation, vol. IV, p. 107). Finally
"Zwingli," bursting into tears, in the presence
of the prince, the courtiers, and divines, . . .
approached Luther, and held out his hand. The two families
of the Reformation were about to be united; long quarrels
were about to be stifled in their cradle; but Luther
rejected the hand that was offered him: 'You have a
different spirit than ours,,' said he. These words
communicated to the Swiss as it were an electric shock.
Their hearts sunk each time Luther repeated them, and he
did so frequently. He himself is our informant"
(idem, p. 108).
Thus were divided the
Reformed and Lutheran communions in Europe, and finally
throughout the world. If a Lutheran missionary and a
Reformed missionary in Africa or in China four hundred
years later seek each to organize heathen converts into
rival and opposing factions of Christianity, it is because
in the dim long ago Luther refused to take Zwingli's hand.
I cannot emphasize too
deeply that Luther and Zwingli were great saints of the
church of Jesus, and great servants of the cause of human
progress; but they had their human failings. Let us strive
to imitate their good points, their courage and
steadfastness, but why build everlasting monuments to
their weaknesses and faults? Why limp to day just because
certain great and good men were lame in some respects four
hundred years ago?
Thus the leaven of
division has worked among us inheritors of the fair
vineyard of Christ. We who preach unity and peace have
torn the seamless robe of Christ and exposed his mystic
body to shame by trivial and childish divisions over
matters that are of no importance. And even if important,
they cannot be maintained by denominational organization.
In old Europe at the
beginning of the Reformation the principle was adopted
that the land should follow the religion of the prince.
Consequently in an age when travel was infrequent there
were many people who lived all their lives without having
the divisions of denominationalism brought home to them in
any direct way. Travelers and the educated knew of the
divisions. Many of the common people were unaware of what
was going on in other countries. But to day, as these
different denominations from all countries of Europe have
been brought from across the seas and set down in the same
town, while in addition there are the many divisions of
the home-grown variety, the simplest minds are confronted
with the insoluble puzzle: how Christians can obey the
will of Christ who prayed that his people might all be one
and at the same time perpetuate so many rival and
antagonistic divisions. Ought we not to be charitable with
them if they find the problem hard to solve ?
|
