1 Kings 15:22

Church and Dissent.

The building and subsequent demolition of Ramah—its building by Baasha to check the defection of his subjects to the southern kingdom and the Jewish Church; its removal by Asa in order that the highway to Judah and the temple of Jerusalem might be open to returning schismatics—this incident may serve to introduce a comparison between the kingdom of Asa and the kingdom of Christ; or rather, the history and relations of the two kingdoms of Palestine after the schism may suggest some thoughts as to the proper attitude and relations of the Catholic Church towards her separated children.

And that our view of those relations, so far as it is disclosed to us by this history, may not be partial and incomplete, it is proper that we should begin the survey, not with the accession of Asa, but some two decades earlier; in fact, with the commencement of the schism. And we may learn—

I. THAT IT IS NOT TO BE WONDERED AT THAT HERESY SHOULD BE STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE . Ten tribes worshipped the calves; only two were faithful to the Lord. Jeroboam's novelties carried "all Israel" away after them. Even so "the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome have erred" (Art. 19.) Donatists, Montanists, Arians, Apollinarians—how many were the sects of the first days! And now, out of the two hundred millions of Christendom, how many are there whom with the profoundest sorrow we must pronounce either heretical or schismatical. And no wonder, for

"The search for truth is not one half so pleasant,

As sticking to the views we hold at present."

Most of our schisms have had their origin in pride and emulation; most of our heresies spring out of our corrupt human nature. It is every way pleasanter to choose among doctrines than to take them as revealed by God.

II. THAT THERE MUST , NEVERTHELESS , BE NO FIGHTINGS AMONGST CHRISTIANS . The armies of Judah were solemnly forbidden to attack those of Jeroboam ( 1 Kings 12:24 ). Though a host of near two hundred thousand armed men had mustered for battle, yet they must "return every man to his house." They were reminded that the children of Israel were their "brethren," and that the division in the kingdom—not that in the Church—was ordained of God. A special messenger is entrusted with a special revelation ( 1 Kings 15:22 ) to prevent the unseemly spectacle of brethren, the children of the same Father, meeting in the shock of battle. And observe that, though there was undoubtedly war at a later period between the divided branches of the Hebrew family ( 1 Kings 14:30 ; 1 Kings 15:6 , 1 Kings 15:16 , etc.; 2 Chronicles 13:8 ), yet it is by no means certain that these wars ever had the Divine sanction. Observe, too, that hostility and antagonism, short of actual organized warfare, is here described as "war" ( 1 Kings 14:30 , note). Now may we not justly infer—what, indeed, is certain on other grounds—that, whatever their heresies, there must be no hostilities between the divided sections of the Christian family? There have been "wars and fightings" amongst them, it is true, but this is against the will and prayer of their head ( John 17:21 ; John 13:35 ; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:11 ; 1 Corinthians 11:18 ; James 4:1 ). For they are "brethren" ( Matthew 23:8 ) by a much closer bond than were the Jews. Spiritual ties are far more real and binding than those of flesh, of mere matter ( Matthew 12:48 , Matthew 12:49 ; Romans 16:13 ; Titus 1:4 ; Phmon Titus 1:10 ). And if it was unseemly and unnatural for Jew to lift up hand against Jew, how much more for members of the same body ( Ephesians 5:30 ; Romans 12:5 ), professors of the same gospel of love? And not only the hand, but the tongue. There must be no stabbing and wounding of brethren by words any more than by swords. "There is nothing," says Whichcote, "more unnatural to religion than contentions about it." Christians have fighting enough to do without falling upon each other. There are the common enemies of the Christian life—the world, the flesh, and the devil. There are the enemies of the faith, the hosts of devilry, and uncleanness, and unbelief, and indifference. It is well when disputing about "modes of faith" that we should remember that there are untold millions of men still worshipping cows and even demons. It is well, too, that we should consider that we are none of us infallible, and may easily confound friends and foes. It has been justly said that many of our disputes are like that midnight conflict at Syracuse, where each party mistook the watchword of the other, and all was hopeless confusion (Stanley.) We must "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered," etc; it is true, but there are two ways of doing that. "It is not the actual differences of Christians that do the mischief, but the mismanagement of those differences" (P. Henry). "Nous avons eu assez de polemique, " said a French ecclesiastic; "il nous reste a avoir un peu d 'irenique ."

III. THAT THERE MUST BE NO SACRIFICE OF TRUTH OR COMPROMISE OF PRINCIPLE FOR THE SAKE OF CONCILIATING HERETICS . Asa, like Rehoboam, was only too glad to welcome deserters from Jeroboam's Church and kingdom; his action with respect to Ramah proves that. But neither of them ever thought of accommodating the worship or polity of Jerusalem to suit the wishes or prejudices of the schismatic Israelites. To neither of them did it occur to allow that calf worship was right worship; neither would admit that there was any true Church but that of Judah, or any sanctuary but that of Jerusalem; neither could or would recognize the orders or ministrations of Jeroboam's man-made priests. In fact, it would have been impolitic, as well as unfaithful, to have done so. It was because Judah was true to its convictions, and consistently repudiated the schism, and stood resolutely on the old paths, that such numbers of pious Israelites came over to its side. Even so now, nothing but harm can come of sacrificing one iota of principle for the sake of the union of Christendom. We may be branded as illiberal and bigots if we ask for the credentials of every soi-disant minister of Christ; if we deny the name of "Church" to each of the manifold sects and societies of human origin; if we repudiate an unorganic Christianity, a religion of mere emotionalism. But all the same, we have no right to exercise a spurious charity and to give what is not ours; we have no right to surrender one jot of Catholic truth for the sake of conciliating outsiders. That would be indeed to "make a solitude and call it a peace." In that way our religion might soon be watered down so that truth and life and efficacy would all be gone, and the thin residuum would be stale, fiat, and unprofitable. Only the infidel could ultimately gain by such a process. Our answer, then, to the separatist must be his: "All that thou desirest of me I will do, but this thing I may not do." Deeply as we desire unity, we dare not purchase it at such a price. " Amicus Plato, amiens Socrates, sed magis amica veritas ."

IV. THAT THERE MUST RE NO CALLING IN THE AID OF UNBELIEVERS AGAINST SEPARATED BRETHREN . This was done more than once in Jewish history, but the result was always disastrous. If Jeroboam called in the aid of Shishak against Rehoboam, he suffered himself, as we have seen (note on 1 Kings 14:25 ), from the Egyptian invasion. Nor was Asa's appeal to Ben-hadad less ill-advised. In the first place, it betrayed a lack of faith in God; then

V. THAT NO OBSTACLES MUST BE RAISED IN THE PATH OF REUNION . That this should be done by the separatists need cause us no surprise. Baasha could not afford to have the highway to Judah open. His occupation would be gone if the breach were healed and the nation or the Church again became one. And, alas! there are similar "vested interests" in the perpetuation of division amongst Christians. But just as it was Asa's care to pull down the frontier fortress of Ramah, just as the stones and timber were carried away bodily by the labour of all his subjects, so should it be the great concern of the Church and of every Christian to remove the barriers which separate those for whom Christ died. The national Church, for example, should be as wide and comprehensive as possible. Sects must of necessity have narrow and restricted boundaries; for their raison d'etre is almost invariably to he found, not in the propagation of error, but in the assertion of some forgotten or neglected truth, which they have made their peculium , and treat as if it were the sum total of revelation to the neglect of the "proportion of faith." But why should we multiply our tests and articles of membership? The Apostles' Creed was thought to embody everything of necessity to salvation in the first age of the Church; and when at a later period truth had become mixed with error, the Nicene symbol was still the only test of the Christian layman. Why should it not be a sufficient test of Catholicity now? Why must we refine and define, and so make intercommunion almost impossible?

"Must it be Calvin, and not Christ?

Must it be Athanasian Creeds,

Or holy water, books, and beads?

Must struggling souls remain content

With councils and decrees of Trent?"

It is partly because we have built Ramahs round our Zion that our schisms are so many. We have insisted on forcing our shibboleths on those who could not receive them, forgetting that, however true any dogma may be in itself, still, if it is not of necessity to be believed, and we make it an essential part of our system of doctrine, it may straightway become a source of discord and division. There are many such barriers and obstacles of our own creation—sometimes in the shape of practical abuses—which require to be removed, and no Christian should be "exempt" from the work of "building silver bridges for flying enemies and golden bridges for returning friends."

VI. THAT , INSTEAD OF RAISING BARRIERS BETWEEN BRETHREN , WE SHOULD STRENGTHEN OUR DEFENCES AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY . The stones and timber of Ramah, Asa used to build Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah. Thereby the road to Jerusalem was left open to friends, whilst these two fortresses commanded it against foes. Against Baasha, if he would wage war against his kinsmen; against the Assyrian at a later date ( Isaiah 10:28 , Isaiah 10:29 ). And is there no lesson for Christians here? Too often they are fighting amongst themselves about the "infinitely little"—about the date of Easter, about unleavened bread, about the "five points," about lights and vestments, about wafer bread, or about unfermented wine in the Holy Communion—while the enemy is marshalling his forces. Intemperance, sensuality, devilry in every form, are destroying the Church's children by thousands, and her watchmen the while are fencing with each other. The siege of Jerusalem (Jos; Bell. Jud. 1 Kings 5:1 ) is reproduced amongst ourselves. The enemy is thundering at our gates, and the Church is paralyzed by factions. We keep raising barricades in the streets of Zion whilst hostile legions are swarming on the adjoining heights. We have our Geba, our Mizpah to build, and we perversely build Ramahs instead.

VII. THAT A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND . First Samaria, then Jerusalem fell before the enemy. Christianity is now comparatively powerless for aggressive purposes; indeed, it hardly keeps pace with the population; and its enemies are asking how much longer it can stand on its defence. Divide et impera , thus have many empires fallen. True, the Catholic Church cannot perish, but national Churches have fallen again and again. There has been some talk amongst the Brahmins of sending a mission to England. And we may see in France, in Germany, a foreshadowing of what is in store for us here. "The class which has recently attained supreme political power is alienated from Christianity in its present forms." Are the Church and the seers alike to be broken up one by one? Or shall we lay aside our "fratricidal dissensions," and combine against the legion of foes—Atheism, Agnosticism, Socialism, and the rest? Of one thing we may be sure, that as long as our "unhappy divisions" last we shall never win England, much less the world, for Christ.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD