David J. Engelsma
The Reformed Tract Publication Committee has recently published The Cambridge Platform: A New Edition of the Historic Puritan Congregational Church Order (ed. Darrell Todd Maurina, Lawrence, MI, 3rd corrected printing, 1993). This is the first reprinting of an important Congregational church order in modern typography. Darrell Todd Maurina has edited the text by comparing several modern printings of the Cambridge Platform (hereafter CP), so that he is confident that this is "the most accurate of all the editions as well as the most readily useable by nonspecialists" (p. xiv). This edition contains the biblical basis of all the articles, written out in full.
In a 14-page preface, the editor gives the history of the CP. He also points out the differences between Congregational and Presbyterian church polities. The second part of this 57-page booklet consists of the CP itself.
The CP is the book of church order drawn up in New England in 1648 by leaders of the Congregational churches. It represented their deliberate rejection of the Presbyterian polity that had recently been set forth in the Westminster Assembly's Westminister Confession of Faith (1648) and "Form of Presbyterial Church Government" (1645). The full title was The Cambridge Platform: A Platform of Church Discipline Gathered Out of the Word of God; and agreed upon by the Elders and Messengers of the Churches Assembled in the Synod at Cambridge in New England to be presented to the Churches and General Court for their consideration and acceptance in the Lord.
In 17 chapters, each of which consists of several articles, the CP treats of the various aspects of the government, order, and discipline of the church. The opening chapters are devoted to Congregational ecclesiology. That the New England Congregationalists of that day were Calvinistic in doctrine is evident from their agreement with Westminster that the catholic church is "the whole company of those that are elected, redeemed, and in time effectually called" and that the members of the visible church include the children of the saints (2.1; 3.2.2). They did not long remain so.
It is the differences of Congregational church polity from Presbyterian polity that concern Reformed believers today, as they are the reason for this publication of the CP.
Although editor Maurina makes a valiant effort in the preface to forestall the criticism, the CP is Congregational in the sense that it gives such power to a majority of the congregation as to compromise fatally Christ's government of the local church by a body of elders. The CP recognizes, and even prefers, the office of ruling elder in the church. But it allows for churches without elders:
In such churches where there are Elders, imposition of hands in ordination is to be performed by those Elders.
In such churches where there are no Elders, imposition of hands may be performed by some of the brethren orderly chosen by the church thereunto.
Nevertheless in such churches where there are no Elders, and the church so desire, we see not why imposition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other churches (9.3, 4, 5).
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that, as Maurina laments, many Congregational churches rejected ruling elders: "By the late 1700's ... among the Baptists and Congregationalists, both of whom shared nearly identical forms of church polity in New England, ruling elders almost entirely died out" (p. xi). In fact, Congregationalism was debating this fundamental aspect of biblical church government within a few years of the adoption of the CP: "In the late 1600's, an extended debate began over the propriety of the office of ruling elder" (p. xi). Some modern conservative Congregational churches, presumably adhering to the CP, still lack ruling elders (p. xii).
Where there are elders, the CP strikes a mortal blow at their authority by giving to the congregation, that is, to one over half of the membership, the right to depose their elders.
And if the church have power to choose their officers and ministers, then in case of manifest unworthiness and delinquency they have power also to depose them (8.7).
In case an Elder offend incorrigibly, the matter so requiring, as the church had power to call him to office, so they have power according to order (the counsel of other churches where it may be had, directing thereto) to remove him from his office ... (10.6).
The context of both of these articles makes plain that by "church" is meant the congregation. The congregation has power to depose its elders. Maurina acknowledges that, regarding the question whether "the congregation have any recourse when its elders abuse their rule," "the more common position ... was that the congregation had the right in extreme cases to remove their elders" (p. x). What the implementation of this alleged power of the congregation would mean in the life of a church - members of the congregation going about to depose their elders - is horrifying to a Reformed mind. And who determines that a particular situation warranting this uproar is an "extreme case"?
The CP goes so far as to assert that "a company of professed believers ecclesiastically confederate" is a church "before they have officers, and without them" (10.2). This is the assertion that the offices are not necessary for the existence of the instituted church. In a line that recurs in various contexts in Congregational polity, the offices are said to be necessary only for the well-being of the church, not for her being.
Though officers be not absolutely necessary to the simple being of churches, when they be called, yet ordinarily to their calling they are, and to their well-being ... (6.2).
In light of this disparagement of the offices, particularly the office of ruling elder, the description by the CP of the government of the church as resembling a democracy is ominous.
This government of the church is a mixed government.... In respect of Christ, the Head and King of the church, and the sovereign power residing in Him, and exercised by Him, it is a monarchy; in respect of the body or brotherhood of the church, and power from Christ granted unto them, it resembles a democracy; in respect of the Presbytery and power committed to them, it is an aristocracy (10.3).
Editor Maurina is quick to offer a mitigating footnote, calling attention to the use of the word "resembles," rather than the word "is." This defensive footnote notwithstanding, the fact is that Reformed, or Presbyterian, church government in no wise is, or resembles, a democracy. To say so is to cater to modern Western political thought. It is also to encourage in the church a spirit of individualism that invariably rebels against Christ's rule by the elders. In addition, the immediate context of the description is one in which the CP is giving such power to the congregation as enables them to exist without elders and as authorizes them to depose the elders they may have.
That the real power over the local church, according to the CP, resides in the majority of the congregation, not in the eldership, is evident from the fact that the Congregational churches resolved differences between the eldership and the congregation by the rule that "if the majority of the brethren don't consent, the elders can't proceed to act" (p. xi).
The CP, therefore, is a thoroughly Congregational document, in the first place, in that it locates authority over the local church in the majority of the congregation. Although speaking respectfully of the office of elder, it effectively denies that Christ rules the local church through a body of elders.
The CP is also, and more obviously, Congregational in that it repudiates the authority of major assemblies over the local church. This is stated in chapter 16, "Of Synods." The language of the CP is misleading. Apparently, the Congregational church order recognizes synods and their importance. This becomes the occasion for editor Maurina triumphantly to dismiss the notion of Presbyterians that "Congregationalists hate synods" as a "misunderstanding" (pp. ix, x).
Whether or no Congregationalists hate synods, they do reject them. For the "synods" of the CP have no authority over the local church. The CP states this clearly: It does not belong to synods to "exercise ... any ... act of church authority or jurisdiction" (16.4). An assembly lacking all "church authority or jurisdiction" is not a Presbyterian, or Reformed, synod. The CP may call its toothless get-together a "synod," and even praise it as an "ordinance of Christ," but one could as well call a papier-mache likeness of the king of the beasts a lion.
The CP errs seriously when, having denied to Congregationalist "synods" all ecclesiastical authority, it adds, "which that presidential Synod did forbear." The meaning, evidently, is that the Jerusalem Synod of Acts 15 did not exercise any church authority or jurisdiction over the local churches. Acts 16:4 proves otherwise. The decisions of the Jerusalem Synod were binding upon every local church: "they (Paul and Silas) delivered them (the local churches) the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."
The decisions of the synod were binding dogmas (such is the Greek translated "decrees"). They were made binding dogmas by the ordaining activity of the synod. Neither did the local church have the option to disregard the decisions nor did she have to ratify the decisions in order to make them binding upon herself. Each church simply received the decisions as settled and binding by virtue of the authority of the synod acting in accordance with the Word of God within the union of churches. Paul and Silas did not recommend the decisions to the churches for consideration and ratification, but delivered them to the churches to be kept.
By its repudiation of authoritative synods - real synods - Congregationalism shows itself to be inherently independentistic. The Congregationalists of the CP did not, understandably, like the name: "The term 'Independent' we approve not" (2.5). Exactly this, nevertheless, is Congregationalism's weakness. It is also Congregationalism's sin. The Congregational church is independent with regard to the other manifestations of Christ's body. It is independent with regard to the Head of the church Himself, for Christ exercises His care and supervision over His churches, in part, by the multitude of counselors in an authoritative synod.
The repudiation of synods, that is, major assemblies, by the CP becomes a fatal weakness for the Congregational church that suffers troubles. There is no appeal by an aggrieved member against the decision of his consistory. There is no recourse for a minister abused by his consistory. There is no help for a consistory tyrannized by a lordly minister. These are some of the "perils of independency."
In a passage remarkable for its candor, Maurina, ardent advocate of Congregationalism though he is, admits the helplessness of the Congregational church troubled by division. He should be quoted in this amazing admission:
Of more impact was the question of what to do when the elders and congregation disagreed about a church act and could not come to agreement. Fifty years after the Cambridge Platform was adopted, the question was still a live issue (p. xi).
For 50 years after the adoption of its church order, Congregationalism could not decide the simple, basic question, "What is the right way to settle a dispute between the eldership and a group in the congregation that opposes the eldership?" One cannot help asking, "During those 50 years in which Congregational leaders were pondering this question, how many congregations destroyed themselves?"
When finally a solution was found, it proved to be no solution at all: "if the majority of the brethren don't consent, the elders can't proceed to act: if the elders can't consent, the fraternity can't proceed" (p. xi). This is mere deadlock. Every experienced officebearer knows what happens in a congregation that is deadlocked in a controversy.
To their credit, the Congregationalists recognized that deadlock is unsatisfactory. Their last word, therefore, to the divided church was, "... in which case, it is proper to seek council" (p. xi). In the end, however grudgingly, the Congregationalists were forced to pay tribute to Presbyterianism: "seek council." For a main purpose of the Presbyterian synod is the help of a church that is threatened by schism.
But even at this point - the point of desperation - Congregationalism, true to itself, fails. For the decision of the body from which the troubled church seeks "council" is mere advice, to be accepted or rejected as the local church pleases. Invariably, the party that is condemned will ignore the advice, especially since it has been taught not to regard the body that gives the advice as exercising the authority of Christ the King. The result is either that the deadlock continues or that the congregation blows up.
Mr. Maurina is wrong, therefore, when he advertises this new edition of the CP by suggesting that "Presbyterian readers of the Cambridge Platform are likely to find their stereotypes of Congregationalism to be severely challenged" (p. ix). On the contrary, Presbyterian and Reformed readers of the CP will find their sober assessments of Congregationalism solidly confirmed. Congregationalism denies the Kingship of Christ over the church in its two basic respects: rule over the congregation by a body of elders and authority over the united congregations in prescribed areas by an authoritative synod.
Enthusiastic Congregationalist Maurina has a practical purpose with the republishing of the CP:
The aim of this edition is to present the Savoy Declaration and Cambridge Platform, not as museum pieces of Puritan history, but as living, vital options for Reformed Christians of anti-synodical and fully Congregational inclinations (p. ii).
He pitches it toward those who have recently seceded from the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). They are receptive. One of the most discouraging developments in Reformed circles is that the CRC seceders are energetically creating a new church order in the place of that of Dordt, patterning it in the crucial articles after the Congregational CP. One of the sorriest sights is Reformed ministers, long-in-the-tooth in Reformed church polity, waving the CP as their church political banner.
The CP differs radically from the Reformed church polity of Article 30 of the Belgic Confession, concerning the government of the congregation by elders, and from the Reformed church polity of the Westminister Confession of Faith, 31.3, concerning the authority of synod in the federation of churches.
It is not a Reformed option, but another system of church government.
Cambridge lies over against Dordt and the London of the Westminster Assembly.
And not only in church polity.