Presbyters in Alexandria and the Right to Ordain

 

It is my contention that the strongest evidence for a historical defense of presbyterian ordination is to be sought in the city of Alexandria, which placed its apostolic origins at the feet of St. Mark. According to Eusebius, Annianus was the first bishop, and names Kerdon, Primus, Justus, and Keladion as some of the successors (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.21; 4.4; 4.19). 

Alistair Stewart is correct to point out that “it is noteworthy that nothing is said within the Mark legend of Mark’s death, implying a certain uncertainty on Eusebius’ part as to how it is that Annanius comes to be bishop.” (The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014], pg. 189)

A recently discovered Ethiopian text constitutes a strong piece of early evidence for the cause of presbytery:

“Māriqos Evangelist entered [Alexandria] on the seventh year of Neronǝs; he appointed 12 presbyters and seven deacons, and he gave them the following rule: A[ft]er the bishop of [Alexandria] has died, the presbyters will gather and they will lay their hands in the faith of God upon the one, among them, that they all will have selected, and thus they will appoint him as their bishop, at the presence of the corpse of the dead bishop. is doctrine has remained for the bishops whom they elect among the presbyters, from ʾAniyānos until the blessed Ṗeṭros, who is the sixteenth bishop of [Alexandria] is happened, not because there was any preference for the juridical principle that the presbyters should <appoint> — this had not been granted — yet because, on the contrary, a bishop had not yet been appointed for every region. After the blessed Ṗeṭros, it was established that the appointment of those to be appointed would be done by the bishops.” (Historia Episcopatus Alexandriae, 4th century text, Aksumite Collection, Collection Σ, fol. 5r)

I have yet to any response to this. Alistair Stewart never addresses it in his work, nor any other writers against presbyteral ordination that I have studied (such as Felix Cirlot's magnum opus Apostolic Succession: Is It True?). They are to be excused for this of course, since this Ethiopian text's publication is relatively recent. However, it ought to send a shock wave against those who question Jerome's reliability in this regard, to which we now briefly turn. 

The most famous testimony on this quote is from Jerome, who wrote “At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist until Heraklas and Dionysius, the bishops, the presbyters always elected one from themselves, and put him in a higher rank, and named him bishop.” (Jerome, Epistle 146). Those who seek to answer Jerome by having him to speak only of presbyters electing a bishop, to the exclusion of ordination, fight against themselves and Jerome’s own words. He here distinguishes the duties of the Alexandrian presbyters to elect the bishop and “put him in a higher rank, and name[d] him bishop.” This latter action must be something different from election (lest we reduce the words of Jerome to a tautology). If it is not ordination and the conferral of office, then what is it?

A smaller source is from the Apophthegmata Patrum (The Sayings of the Desert Fathers). A group of Arians approached Poemon the anchorite and contend that the archbishop of Alexandria was ordained by presbyters (PG 65:341B). 

There are also two significant pieces of later evidence beginning with Severus of Antioch (arguably the most well-known of the Monophysites) in the mid 6th century.

[1]. "And the bishop also of the city renowned for its orthodox faith, the city of the Alexandrines, used in former days to be appointed by presbyters; but in later times in accordance with the canon which has prevailed everywhere the solemn institution of their bishop has come to be performed by the hand of bishops, and no one contemns the strictness which prevails in the holy churches and has recourse to the former practices, which have yielded to the later clear, strict, approved, and spiritual ordinance." (Severus of Antioch, “Letter 93,” in The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, patriarch of Antioch [London: Text and Translation Society, 1903], 2:213)

Severus must be here speaking of the early Egyptian presbyters performing ordination, or else his testimony is made into a complete absurdity. For clearly the later canonical practice of ordination by bishops is put by Severus into an antithesis against the early practice of appointment by Alexandrian presbyters. Otherwise, what is so special an unique about the role which Severus ascribes to presbyters? These ministers had a power which 

[2]. “The evangelist Mark appointed, together with the Patriarch Ananias, twelve other priests who could support him (in his ministry) and that, at the patriarch’s death, could appoint, instead of him, one of the twelve, while the other eleven placed their hands on his head, blessing him and consecrating him patriarch. Their task was then to choose a man of proven virtue, and to order him priest with them instead of the one that had been made patriarch, so that they were always twelve in number. The twelve priests of Alexandria continued to elect the Patriarch, following this rule, choosing him among the twelve priests, until the time of Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, who was one of three hundred and eighteen. In fact, he forbade the priests to elect a patriarch and also ordered that, on the occasion of the death of the patriarch, the bishops should gather together and elect the patriarch. He also ordered that, on the occasion of the death of the patriarch, they elect a man of proven virtue of whatever country, either one of the twelve priests or another that they had been found worthy, and consecrate him patriarch. It was thus interrupted the old rule that the priests were the ones who had to elect the patriarch, and the election went to the bishops.” (Eutychius of Alexandria, Eutychii Annales, in Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales. Pars Prior, ed. L. Cheikho [Beryti-Parisiis, 1906], pp. 95, l. 13–96, l. 3; see also PL 111:982)

From the underlined portion of this text, we conclude that the Alexandrian presbyters ordained both their patriarch, and the priest who was to take his place after the installation of the former. 

In all of these sources, there is disagreement as to when monoepiscopal system became established in the Alexandrian church. Severus of Antioch and Eutychius placed it around the time of Alexander (the well-known bishop who first excommunicated Arius). That would place it in the beginning of the 4th century. In modern scholarship, this opinion is followed by W. Telfer (“Episcopal Succession in Egypt,” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 3, no. 1 [January 1952], pg. 11). Jerome says it emerged during the episcopacy of Heraklas and Dionysius (this would be around AD 232-264 if we were to include both reigns together). 

Some today have proposed that Demetrius (AD 189-232) ought to be regarded as the first proper “episkopos” in Alexandria (C. Wilfred Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From Its Origins to 451 CE [Leiden: Brill, 1990], pgs. 61-62). Stewart is correct to point out that patristic testimony indicates only that Demetrius simply tightened episcopal control in the Alexandrian church after a period of persecution (particularly in his treatment of Origen), not that he was the first monoepiskopos. Stewart instead proposes another time for the standardization of monoepiscopal government in Alexandria: the patriarchate of Julian (AD 178-189), basing it on Eusebius’ words that “In his first year Julian became bishop of the Alexandrian churches, after Agripinnus had held the office for twelve years.” (Ecclesiastical History, 5.9), and the contemporary sayings of Clement of Alexandria regarding changes in the Egyptian church polity. 

“Eutychius is generally considered to be a blundering and incompetent historian, but the inability of Severus to refute his statement that there were no bishops in Egypt outside Alexandria for the first two centuries C.E. (beyond stating that ‘the bishops’ met together on three occasions) lends some credence to his statement that Demetrius first consecrated bishops in Egypt.” (C. Wilfred Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From Its Origins to 451 CE [Leiden: Brill, 2000], pg. 91)

Alistair Stewart explains away the laying on of hands (χειροτονιον) as simply a rite of election done by presbyters, rather than ordination (The Original Bishops, pg. 194). Yet he does not take this same explanation of the Greek when he examines Acts 14:23 (The Original Bishops, pg. 36). Why does he choose to invent a new meaning for χειροτονιον when it involves presbyters, and not when it is used with respect to Paul and Barnabas?

Papal Approval of Presbyteral Ordination

Lawrence Crumb has written an excellent paper titled "Presbyteral Ordination and the See of Rome", in which he provides a good historical case, particularly from the medieval area, that there were instances in which popes approved presbyters to ordain other presbyters, abbot, deacons, and subdeacons. The trickiest issue here is whether the orders in question that could receive ordination from priests were part of the four "major orders", as articulated within Papist canon law. I have set forth here the cases which Crumb examines:

Pope Innocent IV taught that a cleric could confer any order which he himself held and had received, and that a priest may ordain where there is papal approval. (Franz Gillmann, Zur Lehre der Scholastik vom Spender der Firmung und des Weihesakraments [Paderborn, 1920], pg. 88)

On February 1, 1400, Pope Boniface IX conferred the power to ordain priests upon the Augustinian abbot of St. Osyth (Sacrae Religionis). It was revoked 3 years later after the complaints of Bishop Robert Braybrooke of London. We know that this bull had respect to the major holy orders since these orders are mentioned by name in the 1403 bull of revocation (J. A. Twemlow, Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters [London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1893-1960], 5:534-35). The original bull is recorded twice in the Calendar of Papal Letters. 

In 1489, Pope Innocent VIII, by the bull Exposcit tuae devotions, “conferred on the four Proto-Abbots of the Cistercian Order and their successors the privilege of ordaining their subordinates to the Sub-diaconate and the Diaconate. The Cistercian Abbots were still using this privilege in the 17th century without hindrance.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 459). There has been some scholarly dispute over whether the Exposcit bull merely confers upon abbots the power to ordain the sub-diaconate, or also the diaconate as well. In 1954, Mgr. A. Mercati found the bull recorded in the Pontifical Archives of the Vatican which established that it referred to both the diaconate and sub-diaconate. The bull states that the reason for giving the abbots special powers was “so that the monks of the said order be not obliged to run here and there outside of the cloister in order to receive [these orders].” 

Pope Martin V issued the bull Gerentes ad vos (1527) which also gave abbots the power to ordain. This bull was discovered only recently in 1943 by K.A. Fink. “According to the terms of this bull, the Cistercian abbot of Altzelle, in the diocese of Meissen, was granted “authority to ordain to all the sacred orders for the space of five years, and not only his own religious, but also the clergy who served the parishes appropriated to the abbey.” (Lawrence N. Crumb, “Presbyteral Ordination and the See of Rome,” Church Quarterly Review 164, no. 350 [January-March 1963], pg. 20)

I may write more in the future on how the medieval canon lawyers approached the bishop-presbyter distinction, particularly within Gratian's Decretum and the commentaries on it. For now, I will end with a quote from Pope Gregory VII which will dip our toes in the water:

“First of all, it must be noted that in these apostolic instructions, under the name of "bishop," presbyters are also included. For it would be inappropriate for the Apostle, after describing the bishop, to immediately address deacons if presbyters were not encompassed under the description of the bishop. Presbyters are second to the bishop and undoubtedly ranked above deacons. Either the Apostle never spoke of the ordination of presbyters, or he included them under the name of bishops. But it would be incongruous to omit the teacher while describing his minister, since the teacher is more necessary for ecclesiastical arrangements. Moreover, when the Apostle commands Titus to ordain presbyters in cities, he immediately informs him about their ordination, saying: "A bishop must be blameless." Similarly, he writes to Timothy: "Do not neglect the grace given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the presbytery," and shortly thereafter adds, "Do not be quick to lay hands on anyone," which specifically pertains to bishops. Therefore, he refers to the same individual as both bishop and presbyter. Thus, both Blessed Jerome and Saint Ambrose, faithfully explaining the Apostle's statements, testify that among the ancients, the bishop and presbyter were the same, with one name denoting the office and the other the age. However, as Jerome asserts, when individuals began to consider those whom they baptized as belonging to themselves rather than to Christ, to prevent schisms, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be placed over the others, to whom the entire care of the church would belong. After describing the bishop and presbyter, the Apostle cautiously adds instructions concerning deacons, saying:

Degrees of Excommunication within Congregations and Presbyteries

 

In the Old Testament church, the Jews would exclude from the holy things those who were tainted with uncleanness and/or ritual impurity. Thus Miriam was excluded from the camp while she was infected with leprosy (Numbers 12:15). The sons of Korah were punished and cursed for their rebellion against Moses (Numbers 16).  

It was required of those who would partake of the Passover that they were morally and ritually clean before the Law of God (Ezra 6:21; Ezekiel 22:26). This provides some strong biblical precedent for congregations having the authority to bar unrepentant offenders from the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 5:6-7). 

The Scottish minister and Hebraist scholar John Weemes (1579-1636) mentions the following degrees or levels of excommunication amongst the Jews (The Christian Synagogue [London: John Bellamy, 1633], pg. 146). Rabbinic literature and the Jewish halakhah gives us more insight into each of them: 

1) Niddui (נִדוּי) - This refers to when one is cast out of the synagogue. An offender may be warned 3 times (twice in one day, and once in another day). This period alone was strict enough to impose that no members of the offender’s immediate household may sit even with four cubits of his presence (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 334). Excommunication itself lasts for a 30-day period. If the offender does not repent within that time frame, another 30 days is repeated. After that, a formal judgment is pronounced against him. They are, of course, still permitted to pray in the synagogue and study the Torah.   

“When it is stated that a generally excommunicated person is subject to all the restrictions of excommunication, this applies specifically to someone excommunicated by a court, which means they are excommunicated from everyone. This applies whether the individual failed to come to court, did not comply with a ruling, acted rebelliously, or committed a transgression. Whether the excommunication was issued by the court or by individuals, the restrictions are the same, both in their city and in another city.” (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 334) “Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to him: Rav Ḥisda said as follows: Before excommunicating a person, the court warns him three times, on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. The Gemara notes: This applies in a case where one ignores a monetary judgment that was issued against him. He is warned three times that he must repay his debt. But in a case where one behaves disrespectfully toward a Torah scholar, he is immediately ostracized." (Moed Katan, 16a)

2) Cherem (חרמ) - Cherem was a more formal curse and censure upon an offender. The cherem was solemnly pronounced by an assembly of at least 10 (Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, ch. 38). Excommunication was not considered annulled unless formally lifted by the relevant rabbinic or synagogical court (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 334). One famous historical example of the cherem was the ruling against polygamy by Gershom ben Judah (AD 960-1040). Baruch Spinoza was also excommunicated by the Jews. 3) Nezifah (נזפה) - This was a milder form of admonition or rebuke by a learned or eminent person (especially a rabbi or nasi). The person who received such a rebuke would consider themselves excommunicated for 1 day. In Talmudical law, such a person was not required to separate from society (Moed Katan, 16a). The Talmud lists 24 offenses punishable by excommunication (Berakhot, 19a). In the ancient church after the New Testament, there were four degrees of penitence amongst those who had been excommunicated or barred from the Lord’s Supper: προσκλαυσις, ακροασις, ύποπτωσις, συστασις (George Gillespie, Aaron’s rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of Church-government vindicated [Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver & Boyd, 1844], pg. 261) [1]. προσκλαυσις - The penitent wept at the church door, asking the congregants to pray for him. [2]. ακροασις - The penitent was admitted to hear preaching amongst the catechumens. [3]. ύποπτωσις - A preparatory reconciliation with the church, with renewed admission into the church, but nonetheless not admitted to the sacrament yet. [3]. συστασις - The penitent was admitted to the sacrament only after there was strong evidence of his sincere and continuing repentance and walk in holiness. The canons of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314) give us great insight into how the early church dealt with lapsed congregants, backsliders, and those who had yielded during times of persecution or had participated in any way in the pagan worship of idols:

“Concerning those who have been forced to sacrifice, and who, in addition, have partaken of feasts in honour of the idols; as many as were haled away, but afterwards went up with a cheerful countenance, and wore their costliest apparel, and partook with indifference of the feast provided; it is decreed that all such be hearers for one year, and prostrators for three years, and that they communicate in prayers only for two years, and then return to full communion.” (Council of Ancyra [A.D. 314], Canon 4) “As many as have not merely apostatized, but have risen against their brethren and forced them [to apostatize], and have been guilty of their being forced, let these for three years take the place of hearers, and for another term of six years that of prostrators, and for another year let them communicate without oblation, in order that, when they have fulfilled the space of ten years, they may partake of the communion; but during this time the rest of their life must also be enquired into.” (Canon 9) “Let those who have been or who are guilty of bestial lusts, if they have sinned while under twenty years of age, be prostrators fifteen years, and afterwards communicate in prayers; then, having passed five years in this communion, let them have a share in the oblation. But let their life as prostrators be examined, and so let them receive indulgence; and if any have been insatiable in their crimes, then let their time of prostration be prolonged. And if any who have passed this age and had wives, have fallen into this sin, let them be prostrators twenty-five years, and then communicate in prayers; and, after they have been five years in the communion of prayers, let them share the oblation. And if any married men of more than fifty years of age have so sinned, let them be admitted to communion only at the point of death.” (Canon 16) This distinction is also found in Nicaea: “Concerning those who have transgressed without necessity or the confiscation of their property or without danger or anything of this nature, as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees that, though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they should be treated mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful who genuinely repent shall spend three years among the hearers, for seven years they shall be prostrators, and for two years they shall take part with the people in the prayers, though not in the offering.” (Council of Nicaea, Canon 11) Thus we see that there were differing levels of prostrators, hearers, and those who may partake in prayers, and then the final step was readmission to the Eucharist. “Weeping takes place without the gate of the oratory; and the offender standing there ought to implore the faithful as they enter to offer up prayer on his behalf. Waiting on the word, again, takes place within the gate in the porch, where the offender ought to stand until the catechumens depart, and thereafter he should go forth. For let him hear the Scriptures and doctrine, it is said, and then be put forth, and reckoned unfit for the privilege of prayer. Submission, again, is that one stand within the gate of the temple, and go forth along with the catechumens. Restoration is that one be associated with the faithful, and go not forth with the catechumens; and last of all comes the participation in the holy ordinances.” (Gregory Thaumaturgus, Canonical Epistle, canon 11) Congregationalist Perspective: “For if he [the offender] refuse it, the offended brother is by the mouth of the Elders to tell the Church, and if he hear the Church, and declare the same by penitent confession, he is recovered and gained, and if the Church discern him to be willing to hear, yet not fully convinced of his offense, as in case if hereby; They are to dispense to him a public admonition; which, declaring the offender to lie under the public offense of the Church, does thereby withhold or suspend him from the holy fellowship of the Lord’s Supper, till his offense be removed by penitent confession. If he still continue obstinate they are to cast him out by Excommunication.” (1648 Cambridge Platform, ch. 14, sect. 2) According to Rutherford, one should not leave a church simply because the elders may be negligent for a time in discipling scandalous and profane members. “[They ought to] modestly and reasonably say that Archippus (Col. 4:17) and others do not fulfill their ministry which they have received of the Lord.” (A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland [London: John Bartlet, 1642], pg. 98) There was extensive debate at the Westminster assembly over the excommunication of the incestuous man, particularly whether it was an exercise of extraordinary apostolic power or may rather have set a precedent for ordinary fixed churches (the more standard view). Lazarus Seaman (d. 1675) insisted that excommunication contains both a negative privative act and a positive act (Session 86, November 1, 1643, in Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:258). He does not elaborate upon this further. Objection: There is no distinction to show that a congregation may admonish [and bar a person from the Lord’s Supper], and yet not excommunicate. Response: “The proposition in hands may be determined without debating this question; for if excommunication belong to the presbytery in case of appellation, reference, insufficiency, or alteration, it is enough to uphold the truth of the proposition.” (George Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster, pg. 24) Question: Is it necessary for the whole church to be present for the administration of church-censures and acts of excommunication? Answer: Reformed divines have typically answered this question in the affirmative. (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pgs. 40-50; George Gillespie, A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, Pt. 3, ch. 8) The people ought to help carry out the sentence of excommunication, but not in blind obedience. Consider the following reasons:—

[1]. When the sentence of the elders is unjust, it ought not to be executed by the people. The footmen of Saul justly refused to execute the priests (1 Samuel 22:17).

[2]. There is a difference between the practical certainty of conscience in matters of fact, and in matters of law (juris). In a question of law, all ignorance is culpably evil in those who undertake obedience to unjust commands; the people of the Church should do nothing but what they know to be lawful. The executioner who beheaded John the Baptist sinned, because he was obliged to know that a prophet who rebukes incest in the King ought not to be put to death. The command of superiors does not of itself make an action lawful. 

[3]. In questions of fact, there is not required the same certainty which we see in questions of law. By “question of fact,” we mean a question in which the subject is a matter of fact, but the attribute is a matter of law (The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 45), as, for example, where Lord’s priests in giving David the shew-bread committed treason against King Saul? It is this type of uncertainty which is excusable in the congregation when it comes to excommunication:

“Now though Soldiers, Lictors, or People join to the execution of a sentence, and have their doubtings anent the fidelity of the witnesses, yet when all diligence morally possible is given to try the matter, they may well be said to do in faith, though they have not certainty of faith concerning the fact, because there cannot be certainty of Divine Faith in facts; men’s confession, sense, the Testimony of witnesses cannot breed Divine Faith: yea here the Judge himself may condemn the innocent, and yet the sentence of the Judge may be most just because the witnesses are Liars, and the Judge giveth out that sentence in Faith, because God’s Word hath commanded him to proceed,....if they [the Congregation] know the fact in Law deserveth such and such punishments, where the sentence is not manifestly false and unjust, but in the matter of Law just, though erroneous in matter of fact, all possible diligence being used by the judges, they are to execute that sentence upon the testimony of the Judges, though they be not personally present at the proceedings of the Judges and Eldership.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pgs. 46-47)

[4]. It is not absolutely necessary that every individual member of the Congregation be present. Some may be absent in cases of sickness, far-away travel, imprisonment, etc. “Mr Seaman said, A Christian, by baptism is made a member of the whole visible church, —must therefore the whole be convened, because his membership concerns them all?” (February 9, 1644 in George Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster, pg. 15) 

[5]. Only Elders have judicial authority in excommunication. The hearing of testimonies was given to them (1 Timothy 5:19). If all of these types of acts were given to the people (which belong to pastors and ruling elders), why not they (including women and children) receive the entire office itself? The daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses, Eleazar, and the priests, as judges, and the congregation were witnesses (Numbers 27:1-2). The judicial sentence of their inheritance was given by Moses (vv. 6-7). 

“Excommunicated persons though they be debarred from the Lord’s Supper, and delivered to Satan, and to be accompted as heathen and publicans, yet are they not altogether and every way cut off from the visible church….our meaning is, that the excommunicated person is deprived of actual fellowship with Christ in the Seales of the Covenant.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 272, 275)

Excommunication is a medicinal ordinance, not a vindictive one (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:12). Ergo, such a person is not altogether cut off from the Church, since he is still able to hear the preaching of the Word (though barred from the sacraments) for the means of his salvation and restoration to church communion. 

Some of the scholastics, such as Franciscio Suarez (Francisco Suarez, De Censuris in Communi, disp. 5, sect. 1) and Domingo de Soto, believed that excommunication did not remove the baptismal character or passive power to receive sacraments. Rather, an excommunicated person is deprived of all actual fellowship with Christ in the seals of the Covenant of Grace. 

Congregationalists have also erred in their view of excommunication, primarily stemming from their belief that only regenerated persons are true members of the visible church catholic (John Cotton, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, ch. 3, sect. 3). It would follow from this that none are to be excommunicated but regenerated persons, and then they could not be cast out of the visible church, since they are the essential matter of it, as the Congregationalists teach. 

Ecclesiastical Power and Local Congregations

Historically, the Congregationalists and Independents believed that church power and authority formally resided in the congregation as the multitude of believers, albeit with some nuances and limitations in its relation to church officers. The following quotations from certain Independents helps us to better understand their position:

“Wherefore the first, original grant of all church power and privileges is made unto believers as such. Theirs it is, with these two limitations:— (1.) That as such only they cannot exercise any church-power but upon their due observation of all rules and duties given unto this end; such are joint confession and confederation. (2.) That each individual do actually participate therein, according to the especial rules of the church, which peculiarly respects women that do believe.” (John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, in The Works of John Owen, 16:36)

“Wherefore all church-power is originally given unto the church essentially considered, which hath a double exercise;—first, in the call or choosing of officers; secondly, in their voluntary acting with them and under them in all duties of rule. 1. All authority in the church is committed by Christ unto the officers or rulers of it, as unto all acts and duties whereunto office-power is required; and, 2. Every individual person hath the liberty of his own judgment as unto his own consent or dissent in what he is himself concerned.” (John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, in The Works of John Owen, 16:40)

“The first subject of church-power is either Supreme, or Subordinate and Ministerial: The Supreme (by way of gift from the Father) is the Lord Jesus Christ: The Ministerial is either extraordinary; as the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists; or Ordinary; as every particular Congregational church.” (1648 Cambridge Platform, ch. 5, sect. 1) 

All church power is given immediately by Christ to each part of the Catholic church (consistories, presbyteries, synods), rather than deriving the power of the keys from one church assembly to another, neither descending or ascending. 

“If we respect the order of nature, the power, by order of nature, is given by Christ immediately, first to the whole Catholic church, as is proved before at length, and by this order of nature it inhereth first in the whole Catholic church, as man’s organized entire body is, by nature’s order, the first adequate and principal subject of life and the reasonable soul, not this or this part; but in regard of order of time, or real derivation of power, this whole power is immediately conferred by Jesus Christ on the whole Catholic visible church, and to every part of it, and any real derivation of power from one part of the Catholic church by ascension or descension is not to be dreamed of here.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pgs. 384-385)

Presbyterians put forth the following arguments against this position of the Independents:

Arg. 1: It is manifest from Scriptural teaching that there are rulers and leaders in the church, and some who are ruled and led:

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” (Hebrews 13:17)

“We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12)

But if church rule formally presides in the congregation, who then actually rules? How is this biblical distinction between the rulers and those who are ruled, preserved? Some Congregationalist divines responded by simply distinguishing the power of church government which is in the congregation, and the actual exercise of it by church officers (see 2 Cor. 10:8). 

The English Presbyterians distinguished between the donation of power and the designation of power to particular persons (Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, Part 2, ch. 10, sec. 1). The latter can be said to belong to the congregation in the election of officers. These divines also appeals to 2 Cor. 10:8 as proof for church-officers being the immediate formal subject of ecclesiastical power:

“For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed.” (2 Corinthians 10:8, see also 13:10)

From this text we may deduce that church power is given to this end, namely the actual exercise of it in edification. Since not all church members exercise this power, it does not formally reside in them as the proper subject thereof. 

Arg. 2: When Christ gave this power to the congregation, was this as the church to be constituted (at the first growth and beginnings of the New Testament church) or was it as the church was established and constituted under the ministry of the Apostles? If the former, then the Apostles would have derived their authority from the congregation (which is absurd). If the latter, then where is it given to them in Scripture?

Arg. 3: If the whole community of the faithful are the proper subject of ecclesiastical power, then they may be properly called “church-governors.” But this would be absurd, since Scripture expressly distinguishes church officers from the congregation. Furthermore, under this view women and children would govern the church. 

Obj: What concerns all ought to be done with the consent of all. Therefore, the congregation ought to have a role of jurisdiction in things such as synods, excommunication, and ordination.

Resp: The consent of all is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction by all. George Gillespie describes Presbyterian polity as including the consent of the congregation in acts of the presbytery such as excommunication. In Acts 15:6 (and 16:4), it is evident that the apostles and elders alone judged and made a determination concerning the controversy present before them. 

“Now, if the authors of that Confession thought the Christian liberty of a congregation sufficiently preserved when the pastor or pastors thereof do manage the weighty ecclesiastical affairs and government, with the knowledge, and (at least tacit) consent of the congregation itself, then do we not only sufficiently and abundantly preserve the liberty of the congregation, while as not the pastor or pastors thereof alone, but sundry ruling elders, also representing the congregation, do manage the affairs aforesaid, the congregation withal understanding thereof and consenting thereto, tacitly if not expressly.” (George Gillespie, An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland [Edinburgh: James Bryson, 1641], pgs. 119-120) 

Gillespie also concedes that if the congregation does not approve of the excommunication of a particular person, then the elders should not proceed with it. 

Whether or not the congregation is present in the act of excommunication does not prove that they have a judicial church-authority to execute it. The priests cast out King Uzziah when he was a leper without consulting the people (2 Chronicles 26:20), and the priests had the judicial authority against those who were disobedient (Deuteronomy 17:13). 

Arg. 4 - The Congregationalist view of the church-power of the keys would overthrow the mode and method of excommunication as seen in Matthew 18. For the Independents teach that a congregation even without officers nonetheless formally possesses ecclesiastical authority (which must include the power to discipline). By way of analogy, say we have twenty local independent Congregationalist churches each consisting of only 3 believers. If one individual Christian in one of those 20 churches has a grievance against an offending brother, he would first correct him in private (Matt. 18:15), then tell it to two or three witnesses (v. 16). What is crucial for this argument here is that if the offending member continues impenitent, then where should the offended party appeal to? They have already appealed to two or three witnesses, so the next step would be to Tell the Church (v. 17). However, this cannot mean the two or three believers constituting one of the 20 churches mentioned previously, otherwise the steps of Matthew 18 would be rendered redundant (he would appeal to the two or three, and then proceed to tell that “whole church”, which consists of only two or three). He also cannot appeal to one of the other 20 churches, since they believe that each congregation is independent and cannot exercise authority over another. Thus, they have no normative way to follow Christ’s command to “Tell the Church.”

Arg. 5 - “The power of the keys is either in the officers as officers, or only as believers; if as officers, then they cannot borrow the keys from believers, seeing they have them as officers, suppose they be not believers, and that is against the meaning of this distinction; if they have the power of the keys only as believers, then all Ministers that are non-believers want the keys.” (Samuel Rutherford, A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland [London: John Bartlet, 1642], pg. 61)

Arg. 6 - If the congregation has the power of the keys, then women and children would rule over the church.

Congregationalist response: “The answer is, first, when it is said the keys are given to a believer, it is to be understood not reduplicative, as if only and to all such all sorts of the keys are given ; but extensive, that is, to Peter, as representing believers also, and not barely as an apostle, but yet such believers as after should be more specially determined to have their share in them. For they are given unto believers, in Peter representing such, according to Christ's disposement, later to be declared. It is an indefinite charter, to be formed up by him afterwards, only now declaring that those of that sort should have them. And Christ hath afterwards made a peculiar exception of women not to speak nor to usurp authority in the church, 1 Cor. xiv. 34 ; which being an exception, it must be from a rule, and so, firmat regulam, argues and confirms that the rule is, that males have liberty and power to speak and judge in some cases.” (Thomas Goodwin, The Government and Order of the Churches of Christ, Book 2, ch. 2, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin 11:58)

Arg. 6 - “For that end doth the Lord appoint Elders in every church, and a ruler in a City, a King in a Kingdom, to govern them, to feed the flock [Acts 20:28]. Ergo, before there are Officers in a Church, there is no government in it.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 180)

Arg. 7 - God has not given the power of the Keys to those who are not able to exercise them (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1-2). The congregation may not publicly preach, baptize, or administer the Lord’s Supper. Ergo, they do not have the keys.

Arg. 8 - “Well then, the Apostles when they received the keys they did represent the people: but what people? Not the people of a classical presbytery, of a Province, of a Nation, of the whole redeemed Church, but of one single congregation; how shall this be made out of the Text, or out of one Word of God, I see not.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 290)

None of this is to say that Presbyterians denied any power to congregations:

“We acknowledge that a Congregation may exercise all jurisdiction in re propria; but excommunication, where Churches are consociated, is not a thing that is proper to a Congregation, but concerneth many.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 320)

George Gillespie said “I should grant it where there is one single congregation & no more, then that congregation may ordain.” (Session 215, May 9, 1644, in Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 3:70)

“If we regard the order of operation; The Congregation is primum movens, and primum operans, for all the motions of the Catholick-Church beginneth at the inferior wheels and at the lower spikes, if a general council be to enact any thing, motions must begin at the single Congregation at Antioch, at Jerusalem, and from thence ascend to a Presbytery, and from thence a national Church is to send their Commissioners to act in a Catholic council, though if we look to the power itself, it is intrinsically in the whole and in every part of the Catholic church.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 384)

“It cannot be denied that there exists in a congregation of the faithful a virtual power, though not a formal one, to supply the lack of ordination through a popular election in cases of necessity. This may occur if a congregation of the faithful is on an island remote from all pastors. 1. For if David, without any revelation from heaven, ate the showbread in extreme necessity (since all positive law yields to natural law), then the faithful deprived of pastors may choose pastors for themselves” (Samuel Rutherford, Examination of Arminianism [Utrecht: ex Office A. Smytegelt bibl., 1668], pg. 646)