There may be coexistence but that is not biblical unity

Not open for further replies.


Staff member
James Durham often seems to defend union and unity in a denomination (in his day a state church) to extremes; no doubt it seems like that because we are far more used to schisms and rents when in his time he lived during the first great, and perhaps the nastiest church fight in the history of Presbyterianism. But he does not argue unity when there is division over matters of the form of church government, which involves all the parts of it, offices, vows, doctrinal standards and how we hold them, loosely or faithfully, honestly or with winks and nudges and hiding of the truth or true intentions (aka lying).

“debates about the nature and form of government, may be considered doctrinally, and so it is a difference of judgment. Some think one form of government lawful, and others not that, but another. If this difference is fairly carried [on], it need make no division in the church, as was in the foregoing part hinted.

It may be considered practically, that is, when men not only think so differently in their judgment, but accordingly they act, driving opposite designs, as if they were two parties seeking to get one church subdued to them, and neither of them acknowledges the other. This cannot be without division, for the ground of all union and communion in the visible church in all the ordinances of Christ is the unity of the visible church, as even in old times Augustine pressed. So ecclesiastic union must be made up and entertained in a church by a unity in the government thereof. For though there may be a forbearance and a kind of peace where the unity of the visible church is denied, or where there are divided governments that are not subaltern; yet there can be no church union, nor communion in ordinances, of Word, Sacraments and Government, which results from the former, and necessarily presupposes the same. We dare not, nor cannot offer any directions for making up an union here, save that men would unite in one form of government as is allowed by Christ; otherways it can be no union, because so it were not a duty, as union is.” James Durham, Concerning Scandal (1659; Naphtali Press, 1990), 309–310.​


Puritan Board Junior
Gregory of Nazianzus commenting on "such" in his day (two translations of the same citation) . . .

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): Disagreement motivated by piety is superior to concord held together by sentiment. See Fathers of the Church, Vol. 107, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, Oration 6.11 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), p. 11.
Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): A discord arising out of piety is better than a corrupt concord. See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 112 (XVIII.xiii.38).
Greek text: κρείσσων γὰρ ἐμπαθοῦς ὁμονοίας ἡ ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας διάστασις· Oratio 6.11, De Pace, PG 35:736.

This sermon was delivered in the year 364 A.D. “This sermon was the first of three (Or. 6, 22, 23) that the later tradition entitled Orations on Peace. It was delivered in Nazianzus most probably in 364 upon the resolution of a conflict between the local monastic community and their bishop, the father of our author [i.e., Gregory of Nazianzus]. The breach occurred when Gregory the Elder signed a document of questionable orthodoxy while his son was visiting his friend Basil in Pontus; the monks responded by dissociating themselves from their bishop and resorting to the ordination of priests not by him but by others.
Not open for further replies.