Part 1 — Chapter 13: Whether Ruling Elders Have the Power of Decisive Votes When They Sit in Presbyteries and Synods

There are sundry questions propounded by Doctor Field and other adversaries of Ruling Elders, whereinto they think we are not able to satisfy them, as 1. Whether Ruling Elders ought to have decisive voices, even in questions of faith and doctrine, and in the trial and approbation of Ministers? 2. Whether these Elders must be in every congregation with power of ordination, deprivation, suspension, excommunication, and absolution, or whether this power be only in Ministers and Elders of divers churches concurring? 3. If they be ecclesiastical persons, where is their ordination? 4. Whether these [illegible] be perpetual or annual, and but for a certain time?

Whether they ought to serve freely or to have a stipend? Touching the first of these; since the reformation which Luther began, it was ever maintained by the Protestant writers, that not the Ministers of the word alone, but some of all sorts among Christians ought to have decisive voices in Councils. But Doctor Field will admit none to teach and define in Councils, but the Ministers of the word only: others he permits only to consent to that which is done by them. Saravia allows grave and learned men to sit with the Ministers of the word, yet not as judges, but as counselors and assessors only. Tilen will not say that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church ought to call any into their Council, but that they may do it when there is need. Against whom and all who are of their mind we object. 1. The example of Apostolic Synods. Matthias the Apostle after God's own designation of him, by the lot which fell upon him, was chosen by the voices, not only of the Apostles, but the other Disciples, who were met with them (Acts 1:26). [illegible] that is, Simul suffragiis electus est, as Arias Montanus turns it. For the proper and native signification of [illegible], as Lorinus shows out of Gagveius, is to choose by voices. The Professors of Leyden have noted this consensus Ecclesiae per [illegible] in the election of Matthias (Cens. in Confess. cap. 21). In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) we find that beside the Apostles the Elders were present, and voiced definitively, for they by whom the Decree of the Synod was given forth, and who sent chosen men to Antioch, were the Apostles and Elders. Gerard, Loc. Theol. com. 6. n. 28. and the Professors of Leyden, Cens. in conf. c. 21. understand that the Elders spoken of v. 5 & 6. were the ruling Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, joined with the Apostles, who laboured in the word. Other Protestant writers understand by the name of Elders there, both preaching and ruling Elders. The brethren, that is the whole Church, heard the disputes, and consented to the Decrees, v. 21, 22, 23. Ruling Elders behoved to do more than the whole Church, that is voice definitively. Lorinus the Jesuit says, that by the name of Elders there, we may understand not only Priests, but others besides them, namely, antiquiores & auctoritate praecellentes discipulos, Disciples of greatest age and note. And this he says is the reason why the vulgar Latin has not retained in that place the Greek word Presbyteri, but reads Seniores. 2. We have for us the example of ecclesiastical courts among the Jews, wherein the Jewish Elders had equal power of voicing with the Priests, and for this we have heard before, Saravia's plain confession. 3. The example of ancient Councils in the Christian Church. Constantine in his Epistle which he wrote to the Churches, concerning the Nicene Council says; I myself as one of your number was present with them (the Bishops), which imports that others of the laity voiced there with the Bishops as well as he, and he as a chief one of their number. Euagrius lib. 2. cap. 4. says, that the chief Senators sat with the Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon. And after he says, The Senators decreed as follows. The fourth Council of Carthage, c. 27. speaking of the transportation of a Bishop or of any other clergy man, says, sane si id Ecclesiae utilitas fiendum poposecrit, decreto pro eo clericorum & laicorum Episcopis porrecto, in praesentia Synodi transferatur. The Decrees of the Synod of France holden by Charlemagne about the year 743 are said to have been made by the King, the Bishops, the Presbyters, and Nobles. Many such examples might we show, but the matter is so clear that it needs not. 4. The Review of the Council of Trent written by a Papist, among other causes of the nobility of that Council makes this one, that laymen were not called nor admitted into it, as was the form of both the Apostolic and other ancient Councils, showing also from sundry histories and examples, that both in France, Spain, and England, laymen used to voice and to judge of all matters that were handled in Councils: alleging further the examples of Popes themselves. That Adrian did summon many laymen to the Lateran Council, as members thereof, that in imitation of him Pope Leo did the like in another Council at the Lateran under Otho the first, and that Pope Nicholas in Epist. ad Michael Imperat. acknowledges the right of laymen to voice in Councils, wherein matters of faith are treated of, because faith is common to all. The same writer shows also from the histories that in the Council of Constance, were 24 Dukes, 140 Earls, divers Delegates from Cities and Corporations, divers learned Lawyers, and Burgesses of Universities. 5. The Protestants of Germany, did ever refuse to acknowledge any such Council wherein none but Bishops and Ministers of the word did judge. When the Council of Trent was first spoken of in the Diet at Norimberg, Anno 1522, all the estates of Germany desired of Pope Adrian the 6th, that admittance might be granted as well to laymen as to clergy-men, and that not only as witnesses and spectators, but to be judges there. This they could not obtain, therefore they would not come to the Council, and published a book which they entitled, Causa cur Electores & caeteri confessioni Augustanae addicti ad Concilium Tridentinum non accedant. Where they allege this for one cause of their not coming to Trent, because none had voice there but Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots, Generals, or superiors of orders, whereas laymen also ought to have a decisive voice in Councils. 6. If none but the Ministers of the word should sit and voice in a Synod, then it could not be a Church representative, because the most part of the Church (who are the hearers and not the teachers of the word) are not represented in it. 7. A common cause ought to be concluded by common voices. But that which is treated of in Councils is a common cause pertaining to many particular Churches. Our Divines when they prove against Papists that the election of Ministers and the excommunication of obstinate sinners ought to be done by the suffrages of the whole Church they make use of this same argument; that which concerns all ought to be treated of and judged by all. 8. Some of all estates in the commonwealth voice in Parliament, therefore some of all sorts in the Church ought to voice in Councils and Synods; for de paribus idem judicium, a National Synod is that same to the Church, which a Parliament is to the commonwealth. 9. Those Elders whose right we plead, are called by the Apostle rulers (Romans 12:8; 1 Timothy 5:17) and governors (1 Corinthians 12:28), therefore needs must they voice and judge in those assemblies, without which the Church cannot be ruled nor governed. If this be denied them they have no other function behind, to make them rulers or governors of the Church. Rome was ruled by the Senate, not by the Censors; and Athens was governed by the Areopagus, not by the inferior office-bearers, who did only take heed how the laws were observed. But let us now see what is objected against this power of ruling Elders, to voice in Council, and to judge of all things, even matters of faith treated therein. First it is alleged that laymen have not such abilities, of gifts and learning, as to judge aright of such matters. But I dare say there are ruling Elders in Scotland, who in a theological dispute, should powerfully spoil many of those who make this objection. 2. Antonius Sadeel, Johannes a Lasco, Morney, and such like show plainly to the world, that gifts and singular learning, are not tied to Bishops and Doctors of the Church. 3. Neither do men of subtle wits and deepest learning, prove always fittest to dispute and determine questions of faith. It is marked in the history of the Council of Nice, that there was a layman therein, of a simple and sincere mind, who put to silence a subtle Philosopher, whom all the Bishops could not compass. 4. There are many both in Parliament and secret Council without all controversy able to give their suffrages, and to judge of matters in hand, who notwithstanding, are not of such learning and eloquence as to enter into the lists of a public dispute. 5. And if the gifts and abilities, of the most part of ruling Elders, were as small as their adversaries will be pleased to call them, yet this concludes nothing against their right power of voicing, but only against their aptitude and fitness to that, whereto their right would carry them. And we doubt that every Pastor be well gifted, for all which comes within the compass of his vocation, or does well every thing, which he has power to do. Another objection is made from 1 Corinthians 14:32, The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets: from where they collect, that prophets, and preachers of the word, ought to be judged by such as themselves are, that is by Prophets and Preachers, and by none other. To this we say, 1. Their own Camero gives us another commentary upon that place, rightly observing, that the Apostle there speaks nothing of trying or judging the spirits, but only of the order, which is to be kept in the Church: for whereas in the Church of Corinth, the Prophets did prophesy tumultuously, many or all of them at once, and would not give place one to another, this the Apostle condemns, and will have the Prophets so far subject to the Prophets, as that when one rises up to prophesy, the rest may hold their peace. 2. That this is the sense it is clear, from the order and dependence of the text, for v. 30. he commands him that prophesies in the Church to hold his peace, when any thing is revealed to another Prophet that sits by, now this he enforces by four reasons. 1. Because so they might all prophesy one by one, and they were mistaken, who thought that all could not prophesy, except many spoke at once. 2. All that were in the Church might learn and all be comforted, by every Prophet, which could not be, except they prophesied severally one by one. 3. The spirits of the Prophets are not arrogant, but humbly subject one to another, each giving place to other. 4. God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace and order.