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)
No comments:
Post a Comment