HERESY of heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen, and the necessity for such a doctrine of creation consists in the fact that the Christian consciousness demands the absence of any thing that might come in between God and the furtherance of His plan of salvation. It demands that all things be thought of as dependent on God, in order that He may be able to make all things work together for the good of His people ; and so it has strenuously asserted the doctrines of creation and providence in opposition to an independent matter and the reign of fate. The Gnostic ideas were repeated by the Manichseans and by several mediaeval sects, such as the Paulicians and Messalians, and, in the Eastern Church, by the Bogomili. The Pelagian and Manichsean heresies principally concern the Christian doctrine of man and of the presence of sin in man, and contradict the church s creed, because they do away with the Christian doctrine of reconciliation. Pela- ghnism, it was held, denied the need of God s grace by insisting thit man was free from indwelling sin at the beginning of his career, and followed good, when he did follow it, by the power of his own will ; while Manichaeism, by asserting that sin belonged to the essential nature of man, seamed to paralyse the whole divine action in reconciliation. It was held by the orthodox opponents of Pelagius that his opinions really implied that there was no real need for the Saviour and the salvation which Christianity describes, and thit semi-Pelagianism, although much nearer orthodox doctrine, very inadequately comprehended tiiat sinfulness in man which rendered reconciliation indispensable ere there could be a restoration of communion with God. The Antinomian and various kinds of mystical theories about the Christian life all proceed upon a view of the effects of Christ s work which is at variance with funda mental Christian ideas. Christian doctrine teaches that men reconciled to God will strive to live a life of new obedience to Him, and it holds that this life of new obedience comes under the same moral laws as the ordinary life of man. Rut many Christian sects have professed theories abovit this life of new obedience which seem to imply that it is not under the laws of ordirary morality, tint Christian freedom means licence to do what ordinary morals forbid. The Epistles to the Corinthians seem to say that such theories were held in the apostolic church, and were denounced by the apostles ; many of the Gnostic and Manichaarin sects undoubtedly professed them. The same views occur again and again in mediaeval heresy, and were held by many of the enthusiastic sectaries in Refor mation times and later. The Brethren of the Free Spirit in the 13th and 14th century, the Anabaptists during the Reformation period, and some of the followers of Molinos are examples. The mystical theories which so largely entered into the mediaeval church, and which have con tinually clung to the skirts of Christianity, have in many instances proceeded on the principle that the new life is implanted in man in a physical way, and magical ideas of the means of grace have been very destructive to the moral theory of the Christian life. The history of the mediaeval heretical sects is by far too complicated to be entered on here. Many of them did no more than protest against the hierarchical constitution of the church of the Middle Ages. Most of them only sought room to carry out to the full their ideas of a true " Imitatio Christi," but it is also certain that a good many Gnostic and Antinomian tenets were held. The Friends of God, the Fratricelli, the Beghards, were all mystics, but their mysticism was of a very harmless description ; while the Brethren of the Common Life were worthy forerunners of the pietists of the 18th century (see MYSTICS). The heretics of the Reformation Church scarcely call for separate remark. The Zwickau prophets and the Ana baptists held opinions at variance with the ordinary notions of what is meant by the Christian life. Schwenkfeld, the Quietists, the followers of Madame Bourignon, all revived types of mysticism which had appeared long before; and the Quakers had their forerunners in mediaeval times. Many of these sects, though called heretical, seem to have arisen simply from the desire to live purer and more spiritual lives than the church organization of their times permitted, and in order to do so were led to lay stress upon the idea of personal guidance by the Spirit of God, and on the necessity of the " house and heart church " in opposition to the external church life of their time, on the need of personal as opposed to official religion. In this article Christian heresy alone has been described. Heresy, however, arises wherever there is doctrine, and there are Mahometan and Buddhist heresies and sects as well as Christian. The best history of sects and heresies from the sympathetic side is Gottfried Arnold s Uvpartciischc Kirchcn- und Kctzcr-Historic, 1699-1700 (best ed. that of Schaffhausen, 1740). A very good list of writers on heresy, ancient and mediaeval, is given in Burton s Hampton Lectures on Heresies of the Apostolic Age, 1829. The various Trinitarian and Christological heresies may be studied in Dorner s History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845-56, Eng. tr., 1861-62 ; the Gnostic and Manichsean. heresies in the works of Mansel, Matter, and Bcausobre ; the medieval heresies in Halm s Gcschichtc dcr Ketzcr im Mittdaltcr, 1846-50, and Preger s Gcschiclde der deutschcn Mystik, 1875; Quietism in Heppe s Gcschichtc dcr quictistischen Mystik, 1875; the Pietist sects in Palmer s Gcmcinschaftcn imd Secten Wiirttcmlcrgs, 1875; the Reformation and 17th century heresies and sects in the Ancibaplis- ticuin ct enthusiasticum Pantheon imd Gcistlichcs llust-Haus, 1702. Bbhmer s Jus Ecclcsiasticum Protcstantium, 1714-23, and Van Espen s Jus Ecclcsiasticum, 1702, detail at great length the relations of heresy to canon and civil law. On the question of the baptism of heretics see Smith and Cheetham s Diet, of Eccl. Antiquities, " Baptism, Iteration of;" and on that of the readmission of heretics into the church, compare Martene, DC liitibus, and Morinus, DC Pccnitcntia. (T. M. L.) Heresy according to the Law of England. The Ligliest point reached by the ecclesiastical power in England was in the Act DC hcerctico comburcndo (2 Henry IV. c. 15). Some have supposed that a writ of that name is as old as the common law, but its execution might be arrested by a pardon from the crown. The Act of Henry IV. enabled the diocesan alone, without the coopera tion of a synod, to pronounce sentence of heresy, and required the sheriff to execute it by burning the offender, without waiting for the consent of the crown. 1 A large number of penal statutes were enacted in the following reigns, and the statute 1 Eliz. c. 1 is regarded by lawyers as limiting for the first time the description of heresy to tenets declared heretical either by the canonical Scripture or by the first four general councils, or such as should thereat ter be so declared by parliament with the assent of convocation. The writ was abolished by 29 Car. II. c. 9, which reserved to the ecclesiastical courts their jurisdiction over heresy and similar offences, and their power of awarding punishments not extending to death. Heresy became henceforward a purely ecclesiastical offence, although disabling laws of various kinds continued to be enforced against Jews, Catholics, and other dissenters. The tem poral courts have no knowledge of any offence known as heresy, although incidentally (e.g., in questions of copyright) they have refused protection to persons promulgating irreligious or blas phemous opinions. As an ecclesiastical offence it would at this moment be almost impossible to say what opinion, in the case of a layman at least, would be deemed heretical. Apparently, if a proper case could be made out, an ecclesiastical court might still sentence a layman to excommunication for heresy, but by no other means could his opinions be brought under censure. The last case on the subject (Jenkins v. Cook, Law Reports, 1 Probate Division 80) leaves the matter in the same uncertainty. In that case a clergyman refused the communion to a parishioner who denied the personality of the devil. The judicial committee held that the rights of the parishioners are expressly defined in the statute of 1 Edw. VI. c. 1, and, without admitting that the canons of the church, which are not binding on the laity, could specify a lawful cause for rejection, held that no lawful cause within the meaning of either the canons or the rubric had been shown. It was maintained at the bar that the denial of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity would not bo a lawful cause for such rejection, but the judgment only queries whether a denial of the personality of 1 Stephen s Commentaries, bk. iv. c. 7.
XI. - 93