Rev A W MacColl
The last section of the Treatise on Scandal brings us to the practical object that Durham spent so much energy labouring for in the final years of his ministry – to bring harmony to the divided parties of Protesters and Resolutioners in the Church of Scotland. We see here, not only Durham’s view of the unity of the visible Church, but also an extensive practical course of procedure laid out to be followed, in order to facilitate reunion in the body of Christ. Durham agrees entirely with the position of the Church Fathers, who saw disunity as the greatest of all evils that could befall the body of Christ.
There may be no practical or doctrinal scandal in a Church, yet the scandalous sin of schism and division may exist. This is a very difficult subject to deal with, he notes, since there may be both good and bad on both sides and the original cause of the offence may be difficult to detect. Schism is the “breaking of the union of the Church” in either government or worship (p 225). It implies that two or more separate Churches may exist side by side in a place. Such a situation, to Durham and the other Scottish divines of his time, was inadmissible except in the most pressing of circumstances.
What is remarkable here is that Durham primarily grounds all Church union and communion in the doctrine of the unity of the Catholic2 visible Church itself, rather than in any higher bond such as the common witness to the truth, or the connection between Christ and the Church as Head and members. His position is that there ought to be unity in the Church simply because there ought to be only one Church. This view was strongly espoused by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (c200-258AD) and was later used vigorously by Augustine of Hippo (354-430) in his contentions with the Donatist3 separatists in North Africa. Durham believes that in cases where the doctrine of Catholic unity is denied there can never be unity in the Church. Only if Christians are willing to share in the same government can unity exist.
1This Theological Conference paper dealt with James Durham’s volume, A Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal. The previous article, in January, summarised Section 3 of the Treatise, which discusses doctrinal error. All page references in the text of this article refer to the Naphtali Press edition of the book.
2Catholic, in the sense of universal.
3The Donatists were a schismatic movement of the fourth and fifth centuries named after Donatus, a North African bishop. They believed in baptismal regeneration and advocated complete separation from the mainstream Church of the time, which they believed had been compromised during the period of persecution under the Roman Emperors.
Durham infers from this that there is an absolute duty upon the Church to seek visible unity. It is non-negotiable, he argues, and not a matter that needs to be debated. He holds that, if every orthodox minister will do their duty, there is no division that cannot be healed and overcome. Not every area of judgement and practice can be brought into perfect harmony and much mutual forbearing would be required, but that is no reason to avoid making the effort.
He strongly maintains that whatever does not constitute a lawful breach in a Church cannot be the grounds for continuing a separation between contending parties. In other words, if it would be wrong to cause a separation over a certain issue in a Church, then the same issue would not be a lawful ground for continuing a division between two contending Churches. A faulty case of discipline might be an example of this. He asserts that the only thing to which a man must not condescend in order to attempt unity is actually to sin. Mutual condescension is needed, but that party or Church which appears to have most right on its side should be the one which is prepared to condescend the most (p 270).4
At this point, we might compare Durham’s views with Thomas M’Crie’s handling of the matter in his book, The Unity of the Church. Durham urges union as an imperative duty at all times, whereas M’Crie is more cautious and urges the need for spiritual revival and reformation before union can be contemplated between divided branches of the visible Church. In this we see Durham’s background in the one, undivided Church of Scotland of 1638, which – however divided the Protesters and Resolutioners were – remained united in doctrine and practice during the period of Durham’s ministry. M’Crie, on the other hand, was writing as a minister of the Secession in the context of a fragmented Church in Scotland and at a time when the Moderates remained the majority in the Established Church.
As noticed earlier, Durham’s own vision is greatly informed by that of Augustine, and Augustine’s own ecclesiology was, in turn, much influenced by the writings of Cyprian. This is important to bear in mind since the Treatise on Scandal does not deal with the issue of separating when a Church has
4It is important to note here that the Free Presbyterian Synod in 1906 took a different view from Durham on this point in response to the reasons given by those ministers who left the Free Presbyterian Church and joined the Free Church in 1905. A Synod Committee’s response stated: “In regard to the assertion that what does not justify the making of a separation does not justify the maintaining of it, we have simply to observe that, according to the rule of Scripture, if a Church at a certain date in its history gets repentance from a condition of backsliding, and by grace is enabled to revert to the position of purity from which the declension started, such a Church is not at liberty, for the sake of number or external unity, to seek alliance with a body which has refused to go in for more than half a reformation”. See The History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1893-1970, pp 107-8.
grievously backslidden from the truth and, very tellingly, gives no reference to the separation from the Church of Rome at the Reformation, although Durham’s comments on the abominable nature of Popery make it clear where he stood regarding the Antichrist. Rev Donald Beaton contended in the Free Presbyterian Magazine5 that Cyprian’s view of Church unity was a distortion of the unity Christ prayed for, which was primarily spiritual and vital, more than external and organisational. Mr Beaton, however, made no reference to Durham in his article.
More recently David Lachman has written positively in favour of Durham’s position, stressing that Durham was not contending for unlimited union but rather a union that was founded on Reformed orthodoxy. He notes that, if the spirit that Durham urges was more prevalent, “there would be far greater unity in the Church of Christ, both in formal organisation and in oneness of heart and mind” (p xii). It is rather unhelpful that at no point does Durham give us his definition of orthodoxy, although we might presume he had subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith in mind in the Scottish context. For ourselves, we believe that, when the Lord will gather the dis-united branches of His Church together into visible unity, an unqualified subscription to the Westminster Confession will, next to the Scriptures themselves, be the best and safest standard around which a firm bond of union will be cemented.