Part 2 — Chapter 2: Of the Independence of the Elderships of Particular Congregations
We have now rolled away one stone of offence, but there is another in our way. It were most strange, if the collective body of a Congregation, consisting it may be of 10, 20, 30, or 40 persons, according to the grounds of these with whom we deal, should be permitted to exercise independently all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: but it is almost as great a paradox, to say, that the representative of every Congregation, which is the Eldership thereof, consisting it may be of a Pastor, and two or three Ruling Elders, ought independently to exercise the foresaid jurisdiction in all points.
I am debtor to Doctor Field, for answering one of those questions before propounded, concerning Ruling Elders, and here it falls in my hand. He asks whether the power of Church-government and jurisdiction, does belong to the Pastor and Elders of every Congregation, or to the Pastors and Elders of many Congregations joined together in a Common Presbytery. I believe his expectation was, that while as we would sail through between the Caribdis of Episcopal tyranny, and the Scylla of popular Anarchy, we should not know how to direct our course, but should certainly either be swallowed up in the waves of mighty difficulties, or split ourselves upon hid rocks of division. Our danger, I hope, is not so great as he did imagine; for we hold that the particular Elderships of several Congregations have their own power and authority of Church-government, but with a subordination to the common or greater Presbytery, whose power is superior and of a larger extent.
First, then we shall take into consideration, the bounds of the power of particular Elderships, and how the same may be said to be independent, and how not, for this purpose, I shall give four distinctions out of Parker, and to these I shall add other four of my own.
The first distinction is, between things which are proper and peculiar to one Congregation, and things which are common to many: the former pertains to the particular Eldership, the latter to the common Eldership. From where it comes that in Scotland the cases of ordination, suspension, deposition, and Excommunication, are determined in the greater Presbyteries, because it does not concern one Congregation alone, but many, who be taken into the common Presbytery, and who be put out of the same, neither does the Excommunication of a sinner concern only one Congregation, but the Neighbouring Congregations also, among whom as is to be commonly supposed the sinner does often haunt and converse. Cyprian speaking of the admission of some who had fallen, and who had no recommendation from the Martyrs to be received again, refers the matter to a common meeting, and his reason is, because it was a common cause, and did not concern a few, nor one church only. See lib. 2. Ep. 14.
The second distinction is between Congregations, which have a competent and well-qualified Eldership, and small Congregations, who have but few office-bearers, and those (it may be) not sufficiently able for Church-government. In this case of insufficiency, a Congregation may not independently, by itself, exercise jurisdiction, and not in re propria, says Parker.
3. He distinguishes between the case of right administration, and the case of aberration: whatever liberty a Congregation has in the former case, surely in the latter it must needs be subject and subordinate. If particular Elderships do rightly manage their own matters of Church-government, the greater Presbytery shall not need for a long time (it may be for some years) to intermeddle in any of their matters, which we know by experience in our own Churches.
4. He makes a distinction between the case of appellation and the case, de nulla administratione mala praesumpta. Though the particular Eldership has proceeded aright, though it consist of able and sufficient men, and though it be in re propria, yet if one think himself wronged, and so appeal, then is it made obnoxious to a higher consistory, for says Parker, as the Council of Sardis ordains, audience must not be denied to him who entreats for it.
So says Zepperus, speaking of the same purpose, cuivis integrum quoque sit ad superiores gradus provocare, si in inferioris gradus sententia aut decreto aliquid desideret.
5. Add to these a distinction between a Congregation, lying alone in an Island, Province, or Nation, and a Congregation bordering with sister Churches. If either there be but one Congregation in a Kingdom or Province, or if there be many far distant one from another, so that their Pastors and Elders cannot ordinarily meet together, then may a particular Congregation do many things by itself alone, which it ought not to do, where there are adjacent neighbouring Congregations, together with which, it may, and should have a common Presbytery.
6. Let us put a difference between the subordination of one Congregation to another, or of one Eldership to another, and the subordination of any Congregation, and of the Eldership thereof to a superior Presbytery or Synod made out of many Congregations, as one provincial Synod is not subject to another Provincial Synod, yet all the Provincial Synods in the Nation are subject to the National Synod, so it is also with the ordinary consistories, one particular Eldership is not subject to another, yet all the particular Elderships within the bounds of the common Presbytery are subject to the same. So that there is a vast difference between this subordination which we maintain, and the subordination of all the Parishes in a Diocese to the Prelate and his Cathedral. Where Douname does object that all the Parishes of Geneva are Hierarchically subject to the Presbytery in the city, Parker denies this, nisi quis &c. unless says he, peradventure one may be subject to himself, for the Parishes, each for their own part, and that alike, are this same Presbytery. And after, Consistorium &c. for the Consistory of the Cathedral Church is an external meeting, divers distinct and separate from the rural Churches, which are no part thereof, this cannot be said of the Presbytery of Geneva.
7. We must distinguish between a dependence absolute, and, in some respect, a Congregation does absolutely depend upon the holy Scriptures alone, as the perfect rule of faith and manners, of worship and of Church-government, for we accurse the tyranny of Prelates, who claimed to themselves an autocratic power over Congregations, to whom they gave their naked will for a law. One of themselves told a whole Synod that they ought to esteem that best which seems so to Superiors, and that this is a sufficient ground to the conscience for obeying, though the thing be inconvenient. We say, that Congregations ought indeed to be subject to Presbyteries and Synods, yet not absolutely, but in the Lord, and in things lawful, and to this purpose the constitutions of Presbyteries and Synods are to be examined by the judgment of Christian discretion, for a Synod is Iudex Iudicandus, and Regula regulata, so that it ought not to be blindly obeyed, whether the ordinance be convenient or inconvenient.
Last of all we are to distinguish between the condition of the Primitive Churches, before the division of Parishes, and the state of our Churches now after such division. At the first when the multitude of Christians in those great cities of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, &c. was not divided into several Parishes, the common Presbytery in the city did suffice for the government of the whole, and there was no need of a particular consistory of Elders, for every assembly and congregation of Christians within the city, except perhaps to admonish, rebuke, exhort, or to take notice of such things as were to be brought into the common Presbytery. But after that Parishes were divided, and Christian congregations planted in the rural villages, as well as in the cities, from henceforth it was necessary that every congregation should have at hand within itself, a certain consistory for some acts of church-government, though still those of greater importance were reserved to the greater Presbytery. And thus have I, out of desire to avoid unnecessary questions, set down my conceptions concerning the Elderships of particular congregations, and the power of the same.
If it be said, that I seem to deny the divine right of the same, or that they have any warrant from the pattern of the Apostolic Church, I answer. I acknowledge the conformity of the same with the pattern thus far. 1. It is to be supposed that in some small cities (especially the same not being wholly converted to the Christian faith) there was but one Christian congregation, the Eldership whereof did manage matters of jurisdiction proper thereto. 2. Even in the great cities, at the first there was but one congregation of Christians, and so but one particular Eldership. 3. After that the Gospel had spread, and Christians were multiplied in those great cities, it is true, they were all governed by a common Presbytery, but that Presbytery was not remote, but ready at hand among themselves. Now in this we keep ourselves as close to the pattern, as the alteration of the Churches' condition by the division of Parishes will suffer us, that is to say, we have a common Presbytery for governing the congregations within a convenient circuit, but withal our congregations have, ad manum, among themselves, an inferior Eldership for lesser acts of government; though in respect of the distance of the seat of the common Presbytery from sundry of our Parishes, they cannot have that ease and benefit of nearness, which the Apostolic Churches had, yet by the particular Elderships they have as great ease of this kind as conveniently can be.
