Part 1 — Chapter 1: Of the Words Elder, Lay Elder, Ruling Elder

The word Elder answers to Zaken in the Hebrew, and [in non-Latin alphabet] in the Greek. It has four different significations: 1. It notes age; 2. antiquity; 3. venerability; 4. an office. In the first signification, Elder is opposed to younger, as (1 Timothy 5:1) Rebuke not an Elder, but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren, (1 Peter 5:5) Likewise you younger submit yourselves to the Elder. In this sense was the Apostle John called the Elder, because he outlived the other Apostles (2 John 1 and 3, verse 1). In the second signification Elder is opposed to modern, (Matthew 15:2) Why do your Disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders. That is, of them of old time (Matthew 5:21). In the third signification we find the word (Isaiah 3), where the Lord says, that he would take away from Israel the prudent and the ancient, vezaken; that is, the worthies among them, and such as were respected for wisdom. The same word, (and peradventure in the same sense) is turned Elder (Exodus 2:16), Eth-zikne Israel, the Elders of Israel. So the Spanish Seijor, the French Seigneur, the Italian Signore, all coming from the Latin Senior, signify a man of respect, or one venerable for dignity, gifts, prudence, or piety. Contrariwise, men of no worth, nor wisdom, men despicable for lack of gifts and understanding, are called Children (Isaiah 3:4, 12; Ephesians 4:14). But it is the fourth signification which we have now to do withal, and so an Elder is a spiritual officer, appointed by God, and called to the government of the Church (Acts 14:23): When they had by voices made them Elders in every Church. They have the name of Elders, because of the maturity of knowledge, wisdom, gifts and gravity, which ought to be in them: for which reason also the name of Senators was borrowed from Senes.

Before we come to speak particularly of those Elders of which our purpose is to treat, it is fit we should know them by their right name, lest we nick-name and mis-call them. Some reproachfully and others ignorantly call them Lay Elders. But the distinction of the Clergy and Laity, is Popish and Antichristian; and they who have narrowly considered the records of ancient times, have noted this distinction as one of the grounds from where the mystery of iniquity had the beginning of it. The name of Clergy appropriate to Ministers, is full of pride and vainglory, and has made the holy people of God to be despised, as if they were profane and unclean in comparison of their Ministers. Gerard likens those who take to themselves the name of the Clergy, to the Pharisees, who called themselves by that name: for that their holiness did separate them from the rest of the Jews: for this etymology of the name Pharisee, he cites Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and confirms it from (Luke 18:10). Hence was it that some Councils discharged the Laity from presuming to enter within the Quire, or to stand among the Clergy near the Altar. Two reasons are alleged why the Ministers of the Church should be called [in non-Latin alphabet]. First, because the Lord is their inheritance: secondly, because they are the Lord's inheritance. Now both these reasons do agree to all the faithful people of God: for there is none of the faithful, who may not say with David (Psalm 16:5), The Lord is the portion of my inheritance; and of whom also it may not be said, that they are the Lord's inheritance, or lot: for Peter gives this name to the whole Church (1 Peter 5:3). Where (if it were needful) we might challenge Bishop Hall, who borrows a gloss from Bellarmine and Gregorius de Valentia, telling us, that Peter charges his fellow Bishops not to domineer over their Clergy; so shutting out of the Text, both the duty of Pastors, because the Bishops only are meant by Elders; and the benefit of the people, because the inferior Pastors are the Bishop's flock, according to this gloss: for Peter opposes the Lording over the [in non-Latin alphabet], to being examples to the Flock. Surely, if this Popish gloss be true, Protestants in their Commentaries and Sermons, have gone wide from that Text. But Matthias the Apostle was chosen by lot. What then? By what reason does the Canon law draw from hence a name common to all the Ministers of the Gospel? Let [◊] then banish from us such Popish names, and send them home to Rome. Bellarmin thought we had done so long ere now: for he makes this one of his controverted heads: Whether we may rightly call some Christians the Clergy, and others the Laity, or not, ascribing the negative to Protestants, the affirmative to the Church of Rome.

Yet beside the Clergy and the Laity, Papists hold that there is a third sort in the Church distinct from both, whom they call Regulares. These are such of their religious orders, as are not taken up with contemplation alone (like the Monks) but with action; such as the Dominicans, Franciscans, &c., who help and assist the Clergy in their ecclesiastical employments, though they themselves be not admitted into any particular charge in the Church. Now he who will needs side with the Papists in the distinction of Clergy and Laity, may also with them admit a third member of the distinction, and make ruling Elders of that sort; especially since the reason why the regular Chanons are assumed as helpers to Parish Priests, is propter multitudinem fidelis populi, & difficultatem inven[illegible]endi curatos sufficientes & idoneos, says Cardinal Cajetan, adding further, male consultum populo Christiano invenitur sine hujusmodi supplemento. Which reasons agree well to ruling Elders. For 1. Parishes contain so many, that the Minister cannot oversee all, and every one without help. 2. Sufficient and fit Ministers shall hardly be every where found. 3. It is found by experience, that sin and scandal are never well taken need to, and redressed, where ruling Elders are not. To let all this pass, if any man will needs retain the name of Lay Elders, yet says Gersomus Bucerus, What aspersion is that to our Churches? Is it any other thing than that which Papists object to us for admitting Lay men into Councils? They who have place in the highest and most supreme assemblies of the Church, wherein the weightiest matters are determined, ought much more to be admitted into inferior meetings, such as Presbyteries are.

But if we will speak with Scripture, we shall call them Ruling Elders (Romans 12:8): he that rules, (1 Timothy 5:17) Elders that rule well. They are called ruling Elders, non quia soli sed quia solum praesunt. Pastors rule the Church even as they do; but Pastors do something more, from which they may be designed. Whereas the Elders of which we are to speak, have no other employment, which can give them a designation, except the ruling of the Church only. That wicked railer Lisim[illegible]chus Nicanor, who assumed the name, but forgot to put on the vizor of a Jesuit, in his congratulatory (I should say calumniatory) Epistle pag. 61, alleges that they are called ruling Elders, because the Ministers are their ruled Elders. If he were a Jesuit, he may remember that in their own society, besides their Priests, Doctors, Preachers, Confessionaries, &c., they have also Rectores, or Regentes; whose office it is to see the rules of their order kept, to observe the behavior of every one, and when they perceive any seeds of heresy, to signify the same to the Provincial, and he to the General. Yet are these Rectores among the lowest ranks of their officers, so that Jesuits need not stumble when we call our Elders ruling Elders.