James Bannerman presents three theories regarding the parties to whom Christ has committed the gift of church power.[1] The first theory is that church power was given and belongs to the office-bearers in contradistinction to the members of the church. The second theory is that church power was given and belongs to the members of the church in contradistinction to the office-bearers. The third theory, which Bannerman holds to be correct, is that church power is given to both the office-bearers and to the members of the church “in accordance with their respective characters and places in the Christian society”. The theories which are of interest are the first and third. The question asked is which of them best describes the principle held by Scottish Presbyterians.
There is a measure of absurdity about the question as all the persons whose opinions will be referenced are Scottish and Presbyterian. This, then, is an intramural discussion. So, is it a matter of a majority and a minority report? Or is it a matter of the rule and the exception?
At the outset, it must be mentioned that the Presbyterian polemicist, as some would have it, sails a course between the Charybdis of prelacy and the Scylla of independency; or, as others would have it, he fights a war on two fronts, defending against both Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The authors cited were not writing with academic detachment but were lashing down the tiller or responding to incoming fire. The direction and imminence of the threat are important to know when weighing the arguments of the writer.
Starting with Bannerman, while his lectures were given at a Free Church of Scotland institution, to Free Church divinity students, by a Free Church professor, there were controversies outside the walls. The Ten Years Conflict and the Disruption had been fought in defence of the rights of the Christian people; and even though Bellarmine had long been defeated, John Henry Newman had risen in his place. High-Churchism was the clear and present danger. Similarly, George Gillespie wrote in 1637 against the High-Churchism which was being further obtruded on the Church of Scotland. Samuel Rutherford and Robert Baillie wrote in the 1640s while in England, after Episcopacy was dismantled and the decision was being made as to what would replace it. They wrote as their pleas for accommodation were drowned by demands for toleration. They wrote as the civil war within the Civil War, the pro-toleration New Model Army against the nominally Presbyterian English Parliament, was beginning to take shape. Gillespie wrote again on the subject having spent time in England. By then, Congregationalism, or Independency, was for all three of them the clear and present danger. Again, the direction and imminence of the threat are important to know when weighing the arguments of the writer.
George Gillespie writes that the right and power of ordination belongs primarily and wholly to Christ who communicates it to the church. Both Christ for his part and the church for her part have delivered this power to the presbytery, by divine institution. In ordinary circumstances the presbytery, which is the church in a representative form, has the power of ordination. The church, having in ordinary circumstances the right to elect those to be ordained, has in extraordinary circumstances also the power to ordain them.
Samuel Rutherford holds that church power, the power of the keys, is given to office-bearers immediately by Christ and mediately by the consent and election of the church. The power by which the church chooses office-bearers is a popular or virtual power, not an authoritative or formal power; it is a power about the keys, not of the keys. The fact that in extraordinary circumstances something extraordinary might be done does not mean that the church has the power of the keys. The power about the keys is sufficient in the circumstances to raise up office-bearers.
Robert Baillie recognises a change in the Congregationalists’ position. Some are no longer arguing that church power belongs to the members of the church in contradistinction to the office-bearers, but that church power belongs to both: the office-bearers have a power of authority to rule, and that the members have a power of liberty to give or withhold an authoritative concurrence to their ruling. Baillie highlights the difficulties inherent both in principle and practice which this variation of Congregationalism presents. In opposition, he states that the power and exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is in the hands of the Presbytery. When it comes to the election of office-bearers by the congregation, he says that election is not an act of power but an antecedent or sine quo non. It is the Presbytery only who by ordination confer office upon the person elected.
George Gillespie returns to the subject some years later and says that God has not committed the authority and power of church government to the whole body of the church; nor has He committed it to be exercised both by office-bearers and people; but He has to committed it to the ministers of His Word, together with the elders who are joined with them.
As to the opinions of the 17th century writers:
1. All are careful to preserve the right of the Christian people to elect their office-bearers.
2. All agree that the exercise of church power is given by Christ to the eldership.
3. Those who mention it see a power of some kind which the Christian people, deprived of office-bearers, might exercise in extraordinary circumstances.
4. It is easy to understand why Gillespie would speak of a power of ordination when addressing Episcopacy and why Rutherford would speak of a lesser power when addressing Independency.
5. It is not clear whether Gillespie in his later work is referring to his own earlier position or the Congregationalist position described by Baillie. Proximity in time and direction of imminent danger would make the latter more probable. Even so, he would likely express himself in different terms were he to restate his earlier position.
Describing his first theory, Bannerman acknowledges that it is the theory most obviously taught in Scripture. He cites Rutherford, Baillie, and Gillespie (writing in the 1640s) as supporting this theory which he also describes as High-Church. Yet, the fact that Rutherford and Baillie are careful to preserve the right of the Christian people to elect their office-bearers distinguishes them from those who might be called High-Churchmen proper. Similarly, the fact that Rutherford – and Gillespie (writing in the 1630s) – see a power of some kind which Christian people, deprived of office-bearers, might exercise in extraordinary circumstances distinguishes them from those who might be called High-Churchmen proper. While this first theory is the principle of High-Churchmen, the Scottish Presbyterians who hold it have qualified it by other principles.
Describing his third theory, Bannerman says that church power “resides in the body of believers at large and in the office-bearers more particularly” and “each participates in the Divine right according to the especial character each bears, as administrators of the power or administered unto”, and church power belongs to each in their respective characters and places and for different purposes. According to this theory, the power of the keys is given to and belongs to the church, but the power to administer the power of the keys is given to and belongs to the office-bearers. This power of administration is given directly by Christ and is not from the people. As Bannerman pursues this theory, the issue boils down to whether Christ has given the power of the keys to the church and has also given her those who administer that power or He has given to the church those whom He as gifted with the power of the keys. It is difficult to say that the church in the latter case lacks something which she would have in the former: unless it be the power to act in extraordinary circumstances.
As Rutherford accepts the power to act in extraordinary circumstances as a qualification to the first theory, is the third theory necessary to secure it? Is there anything which Gillespie (writing in the 1630s) might want that Rutherford does not give him? In avoiding the Charybdis of Prelacy, Gillespie gives the people the power of the keys in extraordinary circumstances; as the Scylla of Independency looms, he is, perhaps, happy to change that to the power about the keys.
To draw things to a conclusion, it is difficult to consider things in terms of majority and minority reports. The writers cited in favour of the first theory enter qualifications to it; and there are so many qualifications in the description of the third theory that declaring the first theory to be the majority opinion and the third theory to be minority opinion can only describe the case in the most general of terms.
The Scottish Presbyterian position is that:
1. Christ has given the power to exercise and administer the keys to the ministers of His Word, together with the elders who are joined with them.
2. In extraordinary circumstances, a group of Christian people bereft of such office-bearers has the power to replace them.
3. While it is agreed that this power comes from Christ, whether it is a qualified power of the keys or a power about the keys is an open question.
In terms of Bannerman’s three theories, the second theory is rejected; and the first theory stands, modified to some degree with elements of the third.
[1] James Bannerman. The Church of Christ. Vol. One, p. 262-275. The works of other writers used here are found in Bannerman’s footnotes.
Comments