The Westminster Assembly began the debate with Matthew 16:19 and the power of the keys, but they “quickly realized that there was no settled reformed position regarding to whom church power passed after Peter—whether it was visible saints, elders, presbyteries, synods, national assemblies etc.” (242–243).

A review of The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–44 by Hunter Powell (Manchester University Press, 2015).

Church polity, including the question of church power, is a complex subject. Hunter Powell notes that such complexity is largely why this subject of church power “has not been treated thoroughly” (2). But thankfully Powell wrote this book, The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–44.

The title is off-putting for most. It did not even interest me, and I only picked the book up at the recommendation of others. Powell’s work is also not always an easy read. But it is a beneficial read. I learned much. This is the kind of work that makes me want to read other books on this subject, including some of the primary sources from the seventeenth century (if I can find the time!). This book review is not intended to be my final thoughts on the subject. Rather, it is an opportunity for me to summarize the book, jot some notes, and organize some thoughts—all of which I hope will be helpful for others as well.

If you’re familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, you’ll note that these documents do not address much related to church polity (i.e., church government). That is in part because there was disagreement among the members of the Westminster Assembly on such matters. Such polity matters were addressed in other documents, particularly the Westminster Directory for Church Government (1647).

Powell’s book shows that among the Reformed in the seventeenth century, there were diverse opinions on polity, particularly the question of church power. While the majority of the Westminster Assembly adopted a form of presbyterian government, we should note that this did not end the polity debates. England rejected presbyterianism in favor of episcopal government, leaving few followers of English presbyterianism in later years. The Scottish flavor of presbyterianism became dominant, including in America due to the large influx of Scots-Irish. English Puritans made congregationalism prominent in New England (and Baptists derived their polity from congregationalism). And some Dutch Reformed in America (namely the CRC and URCNA) adopted a continental Reformed polity similar to congregationalism. Considering America’s history and the landscape today, it is fascinating to study the origin of these debates in the post-Reformation period.

Congregationalists at the Westminster Assembly

Hunter Powell’s The Crisis of British Protestantism focuses on a group known as the “Dissenting Brethren,” who officially dissented to the Westminster Assembly’s only propositions passed on Presbyterian church government. This group of five congregational ministers—Thomas Goodwin, Jeremiah Burroughs, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, and William Bridge—went into exile in Holland in the late 1630s. They are also known as the “Apologists” because they wrote a tract during the Assembly called the Apologeticall Narration (3).

Powell seeks to provide a corrective to some of the oversimplifications of the differences between groups of this period, such as “presbyterians vs. independents” (4). He argues the that “the overuse of a highly selective group of sensational pamphlets has distorted our views of debates within Westminster” (6). Powell refers to the Apologists as “congregationalists” instead of “independents” because the latter term was rejected by the Apologists since it appeared to reject community with other churches, which the Apologists did not do (10). Interestingly, the term “independents” was used in the Westminster Assembly minutes “in reference to the Scottish presbyterian system of church government being ‘independent’—or alongside—of the magistrate” (10).

As we will see, congregationalism is not as different from presbyterianism as many today suppose. Powell goes so far as to say, “The assembly repeatedly recognized that the congregationalists favoured a type of presbyterian church government” (10). Thomas Goodwin even listed his congregational view as a form of presbyterianism (189).

The debates during the Assembly led the different groups to engage their opponents and modify their positions as time went on. The Crisis of British Protestantism explains the details of the politicking on the matter, with the Apologists seeking to delay a vote on church power as long as possible. But eventually the Apologists were forced to register three dissents in 1644. These three dissents were followed by presbyterians responses, making up most of The Grand Debate, which was published in 1648 (233). Eventually the different groups of presbyterians coalesced to form a majority, placing them at odds with the Dissenting Brethren who held to a form of congregationalism (236). You can read the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren (1645) and the Answer of the Assembly to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren online (though it is much easier to read them in modern publication of The Grand Debate).

Different Types of Presbyterians at the Westminster Assembly

Powell refers to three different groups of Presbyterians at the Assembly: (1) clerical English presbyterians, (2) (non-clerical) English presbyterians, and (3) Scottish presbyterians.

By “clerical English presbyterians,” Powell means “that the perceived right to partake in a synod resides not in a principle of representative eldership, but in the teaching office of the minister,” and “all church power could reside in a synod of elders over multiple churches and not in the local church” (10). So basically the clerical English put all church power in the synod of ministers (also known as a “presbytery”). Ministers are ordained as ministers in the “general visible church” (191). Thus, ministers in a synod are pastors over multiple churches in their region and serve various churches (189).

The Smectymnuan divines—an acronym for a group of English presbyterians (Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstow)—differed from the clerical presbyterians (12). While the clerical presbyterians held that church power resided in clerics exclusively and as the first subject, this other group of English presbyterians held that the people of the congregation were the first subject of church power but the exercise of that power rested in the elders (173). What this meant is that ministers served particular churches and were not ordained to serve the entire visible church or synod. These English presbyterians held that all church discipline—including admonishing and censures—belongs to the synod (190). (Several of the London divines produced the 1647 work, Jus Divinum Regeminis Ecclesiastici: or, the Divine Right of Church-Government.)

The Scottish presbyterians rejected the views of both of these English groups, as well as the view of the Apologists and Voetius, holding instead to a sort of middle way (173). The Scots sided with the Apologists (congregationalists) in holding that the particular church has primary power (and thus ministers join the presbytery by virtue of their ordination at a particular church), while clerical English presbyterians held that church power belongs to the universal church and is passed down derivatively to the particular church (and thus ministers are ordained into the general visible church) (191). Yet the difference between the (non-clerical) English presbyterians and the Scottish presbyterians was this—while the English held that all church discipline is to be exercised by the synod, the Scots held that most church discipline (admonition and suspension) belongs to the particular church, and only excommunication and ordination belong to the synod (190). (American presbyterians are usually closer to the Scottish view, though placing even the power of the excommunication of members in the individual church and allowing for the right of appeal to the presbytery. The discipline of ministers, however, remains entirely in the power of the presbytery.)

There were also Erastians at the Assembly (such as John Selden, Thomas Coleman, and John Lightfoot), who held that excommunication belonged to the state since they “believed the state was a part of the church system based upon Christological fiat” (106). The state therefore has a share in the power of the keys. This differed from the Scots and the congregationalists, who both separated the power of church and state but still held that the state was to protect and promote Christianity (107). The Assembly rejected Erastianism in 1646.

Contrasting Congregationalism and Presbyterianism

Foundational passages to this debate are Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:17-18, two passages concerning church power:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

Read More