times it became familiar, and we find Cicero speaking of the heresy to which Cato belonged, when he described him as a perfect Stoice. The Hellenistic Jews made use of the same term to express the leading sects which divided their countrymen. Thus Josephus speaks of the three heresies of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes and since he was himself a Pharisee, he could only have used the term as equivalent to sect or party. St. Luke also in the Acts of the Apostles (v. 17. xv. 5.) speaks of the heresy of the Pharisees and Sadducees: and we learn from the same book (xxiv. 5, 14.) that the Christians were called by the Jews the heresy of the Nazareness. With this opprobrious addition, the term was undoubtedly used as one of insult and contempt; and the Jews were more likely than the Greeks to speak reproachfully of those, who differed

"Cato autem perfectus (mea sententia) Stoicus, et "ea sentit, quæ non sane pro"bantur in vulgus et in ea "est hæresi, quæ nullum se"quitur florem orationis." (Parador. I. vol. VII. p. 845. ed. Oxon.) This use of the term may be illustrated from Philo Judæus, who says, "Of all " the philosophers, who have "flourished among Greeks and barbarians, and who have " investigated physics, none "have been able to see even "the smallest part of nature "clearly: of which we have a plain proof in the discre"pancies, the dissensions, and " variety of opinions among "the supporters and oppo"nents of each heresy: and "the families or schools of the

different heretical champions "have been the origin of quar"rels to all of them." (Fragm. e lib. II. in Exod. vol. II. p. 654.)

f Vita, §. 2. Antiq. XIII. 5, 9. In other places he speaks of these three heresies as different kinds of philosophy. Thus Antiq. XVIII. 1, 2. 'Iovδαίοις φιλοσοφίαι τρεῖς ἦσαν, κ.τ.λ. and de Bello Jud. II. 8, 2. тpía γὰρ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις εἴδη φιλοσοφεῖται, καὶ τοῦ μὲν αἱρετισταὶ Φαρισαῖοι, τοῦ δὲ κ.τ.λ. Epiphanius says, 'Iovdaiwv aipéσeis éñta. Respons. ad Epist. Acacii.

8 Bardesanes, who was himself a Christian, speaks of rŷs τῶν Χριστιανῶν αἱρέσεως. apud Eus. Præp. Evang. VI. 10. p. 279.

from them, particularly in matters of religion. The three Jewish sects already mentioned were of long standing, and none of them were considered to be at variance with the national creed: but the Christians differed from all of them, and in every sense of the term, whether ancient or modern, they formed a distinct heresy. The apostles would be likely to use the term with a mixture of Jewish and Gentile feelings but there was one obvious reason, why they should employ it in a new sense, and why at length it should acquire a signification invariably expressive of reproach. The Jews, as we have seen, allowed of three, or perhaps more, heresies, as existing among their countrymen. In Greece opinions were much more divided; and twelve principal sects have been enumerated, which by divisions and subdivisions might be multiplied into many more. Thus Aristotle might be said to have belonged at first to the heresy of Plato; but afterwards to have founded an heresy of his own. The shades of difference between these diverging sects were often extremely small: and there were many bonds of union, which kept them together as members of the same family, or links of the same chain. In addition to which, we must remember that these differences were not always or necessarily connected with religion. Persons might dispute concerning the summum bonum, and yet they might worship, or at least profess to worship, the same God. But the doctrine of the gospel was distinct, uncompromising, and of such a nature, that a person must believe the

So Josephus speaks of Judas the Galilæan, (the same who is mentioned in Acts v.

37.) as σοφιστὴς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως, οὐδὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις προσεοικώς. de Bello Jud. II. 8, 1.

whole of it, and to the very letter, or he could not be admitted to be a Christian. There is one body, says St. Paul, and one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all: (Eph. iv. 4, 5.) which words, if rightly understood, evidently mean, that the faith of the gospel is one and undivided. Hence arose the distinction of orthodox and heterodox. He who believed the gospel, as the apostles preached it, was orthodox: he who did not so believe it, was heterodox. He embraced an opinion -it mattered not whether his own or that of another, but he made his own choice, and in the strict sense of the term he was an heretic. It was no longer necessary to qualify the term by the addition of the sect or party which he chose; he was not a true Christian, and therefore he was an heretick. It was in this sense, that the term was applied by the early Fathers. If a man admitted a part, or even

There are many expressions in the Epistles which shew the great stress that was laid upon an unity of faith: Eph. iv. 3. 2 Tim. i. 13; iii. 14. Jude 3. After the very strong expressions of St. Paul to the Galatians, (i. 8.) Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, the application of the term heretic may be considered mild. It was this necessity of the unity of faith, which led to the insertion of that article into so many creeds, "believe in the holy catholic " church;" or as it is in some creeds, "I believe in one holy "catholic church." Every per

I

son who did not believe in the catholic church, i. e. in the one faith which was held by all the churches, was an heretic. See Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cath. VI. 14. The church of Rome has endeavoured to keep up this distinction between catholic and heretic: but she forgets, that according to ancient ideas, the phrase Roman catholic would have been a contradiction in

terms.

kA Stoic could not have called a Peripatetic simply aipeTIKòs, though he might have spoken of him as αἱρετικὸς τῆς 'ApσTOTEλKns piλoσopías. The Christian writers are therefore the first in which we find the word aiperikòs used by itself.

the whole, of Christianity, and added to it something of his own; or if he rejected the whole of it, he was equally designated as an heretic1. If Mahomet had appeared in the second century, Justin Martyr or Irenæus would have spoken of him as an hereticTM: from which it may be seen, that the term was then applied in a much more extended sense than it bears at present". By degrees it came to be restricted to those who professed Christianity, but professed it erroneously and in later times, the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the council of Nice, was almost the only test which decided the orthodoxy or the heresy of a Christiano. Differences upon minor points were then described by the milder term of

schism: and the distinction seems to have been, that unity of faith might be maintained, though schism existed; but if the unity of faith was violated, the violator of it was an heretic. This distinction appears hardly to have been observed in the apostolic age; and St. Paul has been thought to use the term heresy, where later writers would have spoken of schisms. In the course of these Lectures, I shall speak of the heresies of the apostolic age in the sense which was attached to the term by the early Fathers and all that I wish to be remembered at present is, that the term is not to be understood according to modern ideas; but that an heretic is a man who embraces any opinion concerning religion, that opinion not being in accordance with the faith of the gospel.

It may be asked by some persons, as a preliminary question in the present discussion, whether it is not strange, that heresies should have sprung up at all in the lifetime of the apostles. It might be said, that the care and protection of the Almighty was of such vital importance to the infant church, that he would never have suffered the enemy to sow tares so early in the field. Or if we consider the apostles as proclaiming a commission from God, and confirming their pretensions by stupendous miracles, it would seem impossible for any human presumption to proceed so far, as to alter a doctrine which came immediately from heaven. It is not my intention to enter into the abstract question, why God allowed divisions to appear so early in the church. If it be proved that they did then exist, the believer in revelation will be satisfied that God saw wise reasons for permitting it to be so: and to the unbeliever, or