# Durham on the church's authority in civil matters



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2012)

On pp.115,116 of the Old Paths edition of Durham's commentary on Revelation (in the dissertation on church government and discipline in general) he has a list of arguments making out that church authority did far otherwise reach church members in spiritual things than in civil things. The backdrop is an objection that 1 Corinthians 6 shows that the church exercised, in that time, as much authority in civil things as in spiritual. Durham makes out in ten arguments that, on the contrary, the authority of the church in civil matters is much less than in spiritual matters.

In the second argument he speaks of the relationship of Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 6, to prosecute this purpose: and I am not sure I follow the argument Would someone explain to me what Durham is saying?
Durham's words are:


> In that Chapter _1 Cor. 6.7,_ and _8._ the Apostle reasoneth for submission to this; and exhorteth Christians, so wronged, to suffer the wrong rather than to pursue it before Infidels: which doth suppose, that the Church was not furnished with Authority to redress civil wrongs, as she was to redress scandals. And therefore, _Matth. 18._ our Lord giveth order to proceed, in case of non-satisfaction, to the highest degree. And on the by, we may say, it is an odd thing to expound that place of _Matthew_ by this place of _Paul._ As if the Lord did only there warrant a man to pursue injuries before heathen Judges, when he would not submit to the advice of Church-members, seeing expressly _Paul_ enjoineth them rather to suffer wrong, than to make the Gospel contemptible before Infidels by the contentions of Christians; which yet that exposition of _Matth. 18._ will approve of: which showeth that it must be understood to speak of Church-offences: in respect of which _suffering_ and _bearing_ with them, is condemnable, as we see in these Epistles.



I see that 1 Corinthians 6 speaks of the church settling civil disputes among its members so our internal conflicts aren't exposed to infidels, and of bearing wrong if it can't be redressed within the church; I see that Revelation says that bearing wrong in church matters is not commendable; and so I see that there is a difference as to the extent of church authority in civil and ecclesiastical matters. And I see that Matthew 18 gives authority to proceed to the highest degree, which therefore is to be understood of ecclesiastical matters (because no _bearing of wrong_ is required or commended). If that's the gist of it, I'll rest content to lose my way in the thicket of punctuation in regard to the details; but I'd like confirmation that I'm at least getting the substance. The main thing that makes me feel confused is the sentence beginning "As if".

Interestingly, in argument 3 that follows, Durham seems to imply that with regard to civil matters anyone could judge in the church, because it was by way of agreed-upon arbitrators, whereas in ecclesiastical matters it was officers who would judge.


----------



## MW (Feb 12, 2012)

py3ak said:


> The main thing that makes me feel confused is the sentence beginning "As if".



Durham is giving an aside and doesn't enter into the details of what he is addressing, presupposing the reader will know. In all likelihood he is speaking to one of the burning debates of the day -- Presbyterianism v. Erastianism. If that is the case, the following might shed light on what he says. Presbyterians appealed to Matthew 18 to prove that Christ has appointed a distinct ecclesiastical government to deal with causes ecclesiastical. Erastians argued that the court of that text was a civil one, albeit it bore a religious "Jewish" nature. This gave support, they insisted, to the idea that Christian magistrates are authorised to exercise the keys of the kingdom in Christian countries. They also appealed to 1 Cor 6, to show that Christians should not go before unbelievers, and on that basis argued that Christian magistrates had authority over church members. Durham says in effect that the appeal to 1 Cor 6 is not legitimate because Paul does not say to take the matter to a Christian magistrate but to forbear in the matter altogether.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2012)

Thank you, Mr. Winzer, that certainly does make the position against which Durham was arguing more clear. He does seem to take for granted a pretty extensive degree of acquaintance with a writing identified only as _Lod. Mol._ that had at least 654 pages.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

I've seen that before; maybe Luis de Molina (Ludovici Molinae)? "De Molina was not less eminent as a moralist and jurist than as a speculative theologian. A proof of this is his work, "De Justitia et jure" (Cuenca, 1593) which appeared complete only after his death. This work is a classic, referred to frequently even in the present time (7 vols., Venice, 1614; 5 vols., Cologne, 1743). On broad lines Molina develops therein not only the theory of law in general and the special juridical questions arising out of the political economies of his time (e.g., the law of exchange), but also enters very extensively into the questions concerning the juridical relations between church and State, pope and prince, and the like."


----------

