Ruling Elders

“And God hath set some in the church… governments…”

1 Cor. 12:28

“…he that ruleth, [let it be] with diligence…”

Rom. 12:8

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine.”

1 Tim. 5:17

Order of Contents

Articles 3
Books 2
History 1
Latin 3

Nature of Office

Why Elders are Needed
Represent the People
Are Ordained Officers
Power of Ordination of Elders Comes from Presbytery
Office for Life, yet may Serve by Rotation
Ideally ought to be Paid
May be Rebuked
Accusation of an Elder without 2 or 3 Witnesses
Women Elders

Functions of

No Calling or Authority for Ministering the Word by Office
No Authority for Congregational Prayer by Office
Not able to Confer Power in Ordination of a Pastor
Consensus Practice when Cannot Agree

Articles

1500’s

Beza, Theodore – A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), Ch. 5

32. The third degree of ecclesiastical offices which is the jurisdiction and office of the elders
…
34. What is the office of the Elders in the Church

1600’s

Guthrie, James – A Treatise of Ruling Elders & Deacons

Guthrie (1612?–1661) was a Scottish covenanter.

Voet, Gisbert – ‘Questions about Ruling Elders’ in Ecclesiastical Politics tr. by AI (Amsterdam: Joannes à Waesberge, 1663–1676), vol. 3, chs. 5-6, pp. 462-79

1800’s

Binnie, William – ‘The Ruling Eldership’ 9 pp. from The Church, p. 122 ff.

Binnie was a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.

Books

1600’s

Gillespie, George – An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland in the Points of Ruling Elders, etc. EEBO (1641) 270 pp.

The classic, and fullest, historic, reformed piece on the office of the ruling elder. Gillespie sets forth the (right) view that the ruling elder is a distinct office from minister, is not a lay-position, and is still an ‘elder’, or Biblical ‘presbyter’.

1800’s

Miller, Samuel – The Warrant, Nature & Duties of the Office of Ruling Elder (1842) 310 pp.

Miller follows the paradigm of Gillespie and was the last American to get the office right, before the American presbyterians mainly in the north, Hodge, Smyth, etc., and the presbyterians in the South, Thornwell, Dabney, Breckinridge, etc. went separate directions.

History

In the Early Church

Quote

1600’s

London Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pp. 44-47

“As for the primitive times of the Church, we should have wholly waived the mention of anything about them were it not for the base calumnies and reproaches which the Prelatical party cast upon the ruling-elder in saying that it is the new-fangled device of Calvin at Geneva and never known in the Church of Christ before his days.

There is a bishop ([in] Episcopacy by Divine-Right), that makes offer to forfeit his life to justice and his reputation to shame if any man living can show that ever there was a ruling-elder in the Christian world till Farel and Viret first created them. But he has been abundantly answered by Smectymnuus, insomuch that whereas in his Episcopacy by Divine-Right, he boldly avers that the name of the ‘elders’ of the Church comprehends none but preachers, and that therefore none but they may be called seniores ecclesiæ, ‘elders of the Church’ (pp. 208-9, 221), though some others haply may have the title of seniores populi, ‘elders of the people,’ because of their civil authority. Yet notwithstanding afterward, the same bishop in his reply to Smectymnuus acknowledges that besides pastors and doctors, and besides magistrates and elders of the city, there are to be found in antiquity, seniores ecclesiastici, ‘ecclesiastical elders’ also; only he alleges they were but as our Church-wardens, or rather as our vestry-men.

Whereas in truth they were judges in ecclesiastical controversies and did assist the pastor in ruling and governing the Church (p. 146); witness that famous place in Ambrose, which testifies that both in the Jewish and in the Christian Church there were these ecclesiastical rulers.¹ This is also the judgment of Tertullian,² Origen,³ Basil,ª Optatus,º Jerome,† Augustine,‡ Gregory the Great,¹ and diverse others cited by Justellus in his Annotations in Can. Eccl. Affricanæ, and by Voetius, and by Smectymnuus, and by the author of the Assertion of the Scotch Discipline [Gillespie], some of which are rehearsed in the margin.

¹ unde et Synagoga, et postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia; quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio, nisi forte Doctorum desidia, aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri. Ambrose, in 1 Tim. 5.

² Præsident probati quique Seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti. Tertullian, Apology, ch. 39.

³ Nonnulli præpositi sunt qui in vitam et mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant, ut qui turpia committant iis communi cœtu interdicant, qui vero ab istis abhorrent, ex animo complexi meliores quotidie reddant. Origin, bk. 3, Contra Celsum.

ª Basil, in Psalm 33. Ubi quatuor gradus Ministrorum constituit, quod scilicet alii sint in Ecclesia instar oculorum, ut Seniores; alii instar linguæ, ut Pastores; alii tanquam manus, ut Diaconi, etc.

º Optatus, bk. 1, advers. Parmen., mentioning a persecution, that did for a while scatter the Church, says, Erant Ecclesiæ ex auro et argento quam plurima ornamenta, nec defodere terræ, nec secum portare poterat, quare fidelibus Ecclesiæ Senioribus commendavit. Albaspinæus, that learned antiquary upon that place acknowledged that besides the clergy, there were certain of the elders of the people, men of approved life that did tend the affairs of the Church, of whom this place is to be understood.

† Et nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum, cœtum Presbyterorum; cum ergo inter cœtera etiam senes Judea perdiderit quomodo poterit habere concilium, quod proprie Seniorum est? Jerome, in Isa. 3:2.

‡ Augustine, writing in his 137th epistle to those of his own Church, directs his epistle, Dilectissimis Patribus, Clero, senioribus, et universæ plebi Ecclesiæ Hipponensis. So again, Augustine, bk. 3, contra Cresconium, ch. 56, Peregrinus Presbyter, et Seniores Ecclesiæ Musticanæ regionis. Again, Sermon 19, de verbis Domini. Cum ob errorem aliquem a Senioribus arguuntur et imputantur alicui de illis, cur ebrius fuerit? etc. Again, Epistola Synodalis Concilii Carbarsussitani apud eundem, Augustine, Enar. in Psalm 36, Necesse nos fuerit Primiani causam quem plebs sancta Carthaginensis Ecclesiæ Episcopum fuerat in oculis Dei sortita, Seniorum literis ejusdem Ecclesiæ postulantibus audire atque discutere.

¹ Gregory Magnus, bk. 11, epistle 19, Si quid de quocunque Clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit, quod te juste possit offendere, facile non credas, sed præsentibus Ecclesiæ tuæ Senioribus diligenter est perscrutanda veritas, et tunc si qualitas rei poposcet, Canonica districtio culpam feriat delinquentis. We should have added before, that in actis purgationis Cæciliani et Fælicis, we read Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, Seniores. Again, Clerici et Seniores Cirthensium. Sundry letters were produced and read in the conference: one directed, Clero et Senioribus: another, Clericis et Senioribus. The Letter of Purpurius to Sylvanus, speaks thus, Adhibete conclericos, et Seniores plebis Ecclesiasticos viros, et inquirant diligenter quæ sint istæ dissensiones.

We will conclude this discourse with the confession of Archbishop Whitgift, a great writer against the presbyterial-government. ‘I know’ (says he) ‘that in the primitive Church they had in every Church seniors, to whom the government of the Church was committed, but that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate.’

And therefore, let not our respective congregations suffer themselves to be abused any longer with a false belief, that the ruling-elder is a new device and an officer never known in the Church of God, nor Word of God. For we have sufficiently (as we conceive) proved it to be warranted by the Word and to have been of use in the purer times of the Church.”

Latin Articles

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663), vol. 3, pt. 2, bk. 2, ‘Of Ministers & the Ecclesiastical Ministry’, Tract 3, ‘Of the Ordinary Ministers of the Old and New Testament’

4. Of Elders & Presbyters Governing 436

5. Objections Against the Order of Elders Responded to 462

6. Some of the Problems About Elders are Responded to 471

The Nature of the Office of the Ruling Elder

Why Elders are Needed in the Church

John Calvin

Commentary on 1 Cor. 5, v. 4

“It is to be carefully observed, that Paul, though an apostle, does not himself, as an individual, excommunicate according to his own pleasure [in 1 Cor. 5], but consults with the Church, that the matter may be transacted by common authority. He, it is true, takes the lead, and shows the way, but, in taking others as his associates, he intimates with sufficient plainness, that this authority does not belong to any one individual.

As, however, a multitude never accomplishes anything with moderation or seriousness, if not governed by counsel, there was appointed in the ancient Church a presbytery, that is, an assembly of elders, who, by the consent of all, had the power of first judging in the case. From them the matter was brought before the people, but it was as a thing already judged of.

Whatever the matter may be, it is quite contrary to the appointment of Christ and his apostles — to the order of the Church, and even to equity itself, that this right should be put into the hands of any one man, of excommunicating at his pleasure any that he may choose. Let us take notice, then, that in excommunicating this limitation be observed — that this part of discipline be exercised by the common counsel of the elders, and with the consent of the people, and that this is a remedy in opposition to tyranny. For nothing is more at variance with the discipline of Christ than tyranny, for which you open a wide door, if you give one man the entire power.”

Ruling Elders, Unlike Ministers, Represent the People

Quote

George Gillespie

English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 8, Digression 4, p. 186

“Now if Christ has committed the power of excommunication unto the Church, what have bishops to say for themselves, who appropriate the power [wholly] unto themselves, each one in his own diocese? (Calvin & Cartwright on Mt. 18; Paraeus on 1 Cor. 5) For we cannot give the name of the Church unto a bishop: because he is but one man, and the Church is a company of many men.

Nay, nor yet can we give the name of the Church unto a company of bishops; for if they might be called the Church, it should be for this respect alone, because they represent the Church. But soli Episcopi, etc. ‘Bishops alone’ says [Johann] Gerard [a Lutheran]:

‘or they who teach, cannot represent the Church, since hearers also pertain to the definition thereof, but the presbytery can represent the Church, whereunto not only they pertain who labor in the Word, but also elders or governors, put in authority, for expeding of ecclesiastical matters in [the] name of the whole Church.’

We grant then (Trelcatius, Instittutes of Theology, bk. 1, p. 291), that by the ‘Church’ [in Mt. 18], Christ means that company of Church governors whereby a certain particular Church is represented, but for as much as the Church consists of two integrant parts, viz. pastors and sheep, teachers and hearers, we therefore deny that the representative Church whereof Christ speaks can be any other than that eccle∣siastical consistory whereof we have spoken.”

Ruling Elders are Ordained Officers, Not Lay-Persons

Quotes

Order of

Rutherford
London Presbyterians

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

Lex Rex… (1644; rep. Sprinkle), p. 216, speaking of his Anglican opponent

“…his invectives against ruling elders, falsely called lay-elders…”

London Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pp. 29-48

“But it will be objected that notwithstanding all that has been said [by us] to render the presbyterial government amiable and acceptable, yet there are two great mountains which do lie in the way which do hinder, and (as some say) will forever hinder people from submitting unto it. The one is:

1. Because it sets up a new officer in the Church, which is a mere human creature, having no authority from the Word of God, nor was ever heard of in the Church of Christ till [John] Calvin’s time, and that is the lay-elder.

2. Because it requires all, of all sorts, to come to the minister and these lay-elders to be examined before they can be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Answer: We cannot deny but that these two objections are great remoras [sucker-fish] to the government and do hinder the general receiving of it, and therefore we shall be a little the larger in answering of them.

For the first of them, we do here freely confess that if we were of opinion, as some are, that the ruling-elder has no foundation in the Word of God, but is a mere human ordinance brought into the Church only in a prudential way, we should heartily desire the utter abolition of him: For we are not ignorant that the ruling prelate was brought into the Church upon the same account, for the avoiding of schism and division, and afterwards proved the great author and fomenter of schism and division. And if we should decline the ruling prelate, and take in the ruling elder upon the same prudential grounds, it were just with God to make him as mischievous to the Church as ever the ruling prelate was: And therefore let us consider what may be said out of the Word of God for the justification of this so much decried officer:

Yet first we cannot but take notice that the name of lay-elder was affixed to this officer by way of reproach and scorn by the adversaries of him and that it ought not to be continued. For though it be evident by Scripture that there is a great difference betwixt the ministry usually called the clergy and the people commonly called the laity (Heb. 13:17, 24): yet it’s also as manifest that the Scripture distinguishes them not by the names of clergy and laity, forasmuch as all God’s people are therein styled the Lord’s clergy, or inheritance, and the Lord is called their inheritance (1 Pet. 5:3; Jer. 10:16). And when persons are duly chosen from amongst the people to be governors in the Church, as such, they are no longer laymen, but ecclesiastical persons. And therefore we profess a dislike of the name lay-elder and conceive they ought to be called either governors in the Church, 1 Cor. 12:23 or ruling-elders, as 1 Tim. 5:17, not because their office is to rule alone (for the teaching-elder is a ruler also, Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12), but because their office is only to rule (Non quia soli, sed quia solum præsunt). Now concerning these ruling-elders, we confess, that they are officers somewhat new and strange to the Church of England, yet not new nor strange to the Word of God, nor to the primitive times, nor (as all know) to the Reformed Churches.

First, they are not new nor strange to the Word of God, neither in the Old Testament, nor in the New.

The Jews in the Old Testament had two sorts of elders: elders of the priests and elders of the people, suitable to our teaching and ruling-elders, as appears, Jer. 19:1. And these elders of the people did sit and vote with the priests and Levites in all their ecclesiastical consistories, and that by divine appointment. That they were constituent members of the great Sanhedrim appears, 2 Chron. 19:8, where we read that some of the chief of the fathers were joined with the priests, to judge in the matters of the Lord.

And howsoever many things among the Jews after the captivity did decline to disorder and confusion, yet we find even in the days of Christ and his apostles that the elders of the people still sat and voiced in the council with the priests, according to the ancient form, as is clear from Mt. 26:57, 59; 27:1, 12; 16:21; 21:23; Mk. 14:43; Lk. 22:66, and Saravia himself, who disputes so much against ruling elders, acknowledges thus much (De divers. grad. Minist. Evang., ch. 11, p. 108):

‘I find indeed,’ (says he) ‘elders in the assembly of the priests of the old synagogue, which were not priests; and their suffrages and authority in all judgments were equal with the suffrages of the priests.’

But he adds that these elders of the people were civil magistrates, which is a poor shift directly against many Scriptures which contradistinguish these elders from the civil magistrate, as appears: Acts 4:5; Judg. 8:14; Dt. 5:23; Josh. 8:33; 2 Kn. 10:15; Ezr. 10:14. And though it were possible that some of them might be civil magistrates, as some elders amongst us are justices of the peace, yet they did not sit under that capacity in the ecclesiastical Sanhedrim, but as ecclesiastical elders.

And that the Jews also had elders of the people, sitting and voting in their inferior consistories, appears (as we humbly conceive) from Acts 13:15; 18:8, 17; Mk. 5:22. In which places we read of the rulers of the synagogue, who were neither priests nor Levites, and yet were rulers in Church-matters, and had power, together with the priests, of casting men out of the synagogue, and of ordering synagogue-worship, Jn. 12:42; 13:15.

Now this association of the elders of the people with the priest in the Jewish Church-government was by divine appointment, for Moses first instituted it and afterwards Jehosaphat restored it according as they were directed by God, Num. 11:16; 2 Chron. 19:8. And it did belong to the Jewish Church, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, and therefore belongs to the Christian Church as well as Jewish. For whatsoever agrees to a Church as a Church, agrees to every Church. There was nothing Judaical or typical in this institution, but it was founded upon the light of nature and right reason, which is alike in all ages.

But leaving the Old Testament, let us consider what may be said for the divine right of the ruling-elder out of the New Testament. For this purpose we have already produced three places, which we shall now briefly open and show how the ruling elder is proved out of them. The places are, 1 Cor. 12:28; Rom. 12:7-8; 1 Tim. 5:17.

The first place is, 1 Cor. 12:28, ‘And God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles, secondarily, prophets, thirdly, teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues;’ where we have an enumeration of sundry officers of the Church; and amongst others, there are helps, governments. By ‘helps’ are meant deacons (as not only our Reformed divines, but Chrysostom and Estius, and others observe, Calvin, in loc.; Chrysostom, upon 1 Cor. 12:28; Estius, upon 1 Cor 12:28) and by ‘governments’ are meant the ruling-elder, which that it may the better appear, we will propound and prove these six things:

1. That by ‘governments’ are meant men exercising government, the abstract put for the concrete. The intent of the apostle is not to speak of offices distinct from persons, but of persons exercising offices. This appears first, by the beginning of the verse, ‘God hath set some in his Church;’ this relates to persons, not unto offices. Secondly, by the 29th and 30th verses, where the apostle speaks concretively of those things which he had spoken before abstractively, ‘Are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues, etc?’ and so by consequence, ‘Are all helpers, are all governors?’ And therefore it is that the Syriac, instead of ‘helps, governments,’ reads it ‘helpers, governors.’

2. That the governor here meant must needs be a Church-governor; for it is expressly said that he is seated in the Church, and therefore the civil magistrate cannot be meant by this governor, as some would have it, partly because this is quite besides the whole intent and scope of the chapter, treating merely upon spiritual Church-matters, not at all of secular civil matters; and partly because the magistrate, as such, is not placed by God in the Church, but in the commonwealth: and partly, because the apostle writes of such governors that had at that time actual existence in the Church, and neither then, nor diverse hundred years after, were there any Christian magistrates.

3. That this Church-governor is seated by God in his Church; It is a plant of God’s own planting, and therefore shall stand firm, maugre all opposition. For it is expressly said, ‘God hath set some in his Church, first Apostles, etc. then helps, then governments.’

4. That this Church-governor thus seated by God in his Churches [is] not only a Church-member, but a Church-officer. For though it be a question amongst the learned whether some of the persons here named, as the workers of miracles and those that had the gift of healing and of tongues, were seated by God as officers in the Church, and not rather only as eminent members indued with these eminent gifts, yet it is most certain that whosoever is seated by God in his Church as a Church governor, must needs be a Church officer, for the nature of the gift does necessarily imply an office. The Greek word for ‘governments’ (Κυβερνησειζ) is a metaphor from pilots, or ship-masters, governing their ships (hence the master of a ship is called Κυβερνητης, a governor, Jm. 3:4) and it notes such officers as sit at the stern of the vessel of the Church, to govern and guide it in spirituals according to the will and mind of Christ, which is the direct office of our ruling-elder.

5. This Church-governor thus seated by God in his Church as a Church-officer, is an ordinary and perpetual officer in his Church. Indeed, here is mention made of officers-extraordinary, as apostles, prophets; and of gifts-extraordinary, as the gift of miracles, healing and of tongues; but here is also mention made of ordinary officers, perpetually to abide, as teachers, helpers and the Church-governor, or ruling-elder. And that this officer is ordinary and perpetual appears from the perpetual necessity of him in the Church; for a Church without government is as a ship without a pilot, as a kingdom without a magistrate, and a world without a sun.

6. That this Church-governor thus seated by God in his Church as a perpetual officer is an officer contradistinguished in the text from the apostles, prophets, teachers and all other officers in the Church. This appears:

1. By the apostle’s manner of expressing these officers in an enumerative form, ‘First, apostles, secondarily, prophets, thirdly, teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, etc.’

2. By the recapitulation, verses 29-30, ‘Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? etc.’

3. By the scope of the whole chapter, which is to set down different gifts and offices in different subjects; It is said, verses 8-9:

‘To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith, etc.’

And for this purpose the apostle draws a simile from the members of man’s body:

‘As there are different members in man’s body, and every member has its different office, and every member stands in need one of another; the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again, the head to the foot, I have no need of thee, etc.’

So it is in the Church ministerial, which is the body of Christ. God has set different officers in his Church, some ordinary and perpetual; some extraordinary and temporary: And these different officers have different offices, some to teach, others to distribute to the poor saints, others to govern. Are all teachers? are all deacons? are all Church-governors? and these have all need one of another. The teacher cannot say to the deacon, ‘I have no need of thee;’ nor to the Church governor, ‘I have no need of thee:’ But if all these offices were in the pastor alone, and only, then might he truly say to the deacon and ruling-elder, ‘I have no need of thee.’ But now God has so set the members in his body, which is his Church, that every member stands in need one of another’s help and support.

Objection: If it be objected that the apostles had all these offices and gifts here mentioned, eminently seated in them, for they were prophets, teachers, workers of miracles; and therefore why may not all these be understood of one and the same person?

Answer: Though it be true, that the apostles had eminently all these; yet it is as true that there are many here named, which had but one of these gifts formally seated in them: And it is also apparent that some of the persons here named were distinct officers in the Church, as the prophet, and the teacher. Though the apostles were prophets and teachers, yet the prophet and the teacher were officers distinct from the apostles; and by a parity of reason, so were the governors from the apostle, prophet and teacher; the scope of the apostle being (as has been said) to set out distinct offices in distinct officers: are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? The sum of what we have said from this Scripture, then, is this, that God has seated some men in his Church which have a gift and office to govern, which are neither apostles, prophets, teachers, nor pastors; and therefore they are ruling-elders, which is the officer which we are inquiring after.

Now this interpretation which we have given is not only the interpretation of reformed divines, both Lutheran and Calvinists, but of the ancient fathers and even the Papists themselves, as appears by the quotations in the margin.¹

¹ Gerhardus, de Ministerio Ecclesiastico; Calvin, in loc.; Peter Martyr, in loc.; Beza, in loc.; Piscator, in loc.; Ambrose, in loc.; Chrysostom, in loc.; Salmero, in loc.: Septimo loco ponit gubernatores, id est, eos qui præsunt aliis, et gubernant, plebemque in officio continent. Et Ecclesia Christi habet suam politiam, et cum Pastor per se omnia præstare non posset, adjungebantur ille duo Presbyteri, de quibus dixit, Qui bene præsunt Presbyteri, duplici honore digni habeantur, maxime qui laborant in verbo et doctrina; Qui una cum Pastore deliberabant de Ecclesiæ cura, et instauratione: qui etiam fidei atque honestæ vitæ consortes erant.

The second text is, Rom. 12:6-8:

‘Having then gifts differing according to the grace given, whether prophesy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation. He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity. He that ruleth, with diligence. He that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.’

In which words we have a perfect enumeration of all the ordinary offices of the Church. These offices are reduced, first, to two general heads, prophesy and ministry, and are therefore set down in the abstract. By Prophesy is meant the faculty of right understanding, interpreting and expounding the Scriptures. Ministry comprehends all other employments in the Church. Then these generals are subdivided into the special offices contained under them and are therefore put down in the concrete.

Under ‘prophesy’ are contained: 1. ‘He that teacheth’, that is, the doctor or teacher. 2. ‘He that exhorteth’, i.e. the pastor.

Under ‘ministry’ are comprised: 1. ‘He that giveth’, that is, the deacon. 2. ‘He that ruleth’, that is, the ruling elder. 3. ‘He that sheweth mercy’, which office pertained unto them who in those days had care of the sick.¹

¹ Estius in Rom. 12, Aliis placet etiam hac parte speciale quoddam charisma sive officium significari, et misereri dicatur is qui ab Ecclesia curandis miseris, potissimum ægrotis, præfectus est, iisque præbet obsequia; velut etiam hodie fit in nosocomiis; qui sensus haudquaquam improbabilis est.

So that in these words we have the ruling-elder plainly set down and contra-distinguished from the teaching and exhorting elder (as appears by the distributive particles, ειτε ὁ διδασκων, ειτε ὁ παρακαλων, ‘Whether he that teacheth; whether he that exhorteth; whether he that ruleth, etc.’). And here likewise we have the divine institution of the ruling-elder, for so the words hold forth, ‘Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given unto us;’ and thus also in the third verse, ‘according as God hath dealt to every man, etc.’ This officer is the gift of God’s free grace to the Church, for the good of it.

Against this exposition of the text it is objected by those that oppose the divine right of the ruling-elder that the apostle speaks in these words not of several offices in several persons, but of several gifts in one and the same person, for he says, ‘having then gifts differing according, etc.’ But we answer:

1. That the word ‘gift’ is often in Scripture taken for office, as Eph. 4:8-11, ‘When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men;’ and v. 11, ‘He sheweth what these gifts were, some to be apostles, some evangelists, etc.’

2. That the apostle in the protasis speaks not of several gifts, but of several offices, and these not in the same, but in several members, v. 4, ‘As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.’ And therefore the apodosis must also be understood not only of several gifts, but of several offices, and these in several subjects. And this further appears by the very similitude which the apostle here uses, which is the same he used, 1 Cor. 12, from the body natural, wherein there are many distinct members, and every member has its distinct office; and so it is in the Church of Christ.

3. These gifts here mentioned, and the waiting upon them, do necessarily imply an office in whomsoever they are; and therefore they are set down emphatically with an article, ειτε ὁ διδασκων ὁ προισταμενος. He that hath the gift of teaching, and exhorting, and ruling, and waiteth upon this gift, what is he but a teacher, pastor, and ruling-elder? And this must either be granted or else we must open a door for all members of the Church, even women, not only to preach and teach, but to rule also and to wait upon preaching and ruling: This truth is so clear as that the Papists themselves being convinced of it, do say upon this text that the apostle here first speaks of gifts in general, and secondly applies these gifts to ecclesiastical officers, v. 6, and afterwards directs his exhortation to all Christians in general. (Cornelius à Lapide, on Rom. 12:6-8)

The third text for the divine right of the ruling-elder is, 1 Tim. 5:17, ‘Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.’ For the understanding of which words we will lay down this rule, that every text of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the literal and grammatical construction, unless it be contrary to the analogy of faith or the rule of life, or the circumstances of the text: otherwise, we shall make a nose of wax of the Scriptures and draw quidlibet ex quolibet [whatever one pleases out of whatever one pleases]. Now according to the grammatical construction, here are plainly held forth two sorts of elders, the one only ruling and the other also laboring in word and doctrine. Give us leave to give you the true analysis of the words:

1. Here is a genus, a general, and that is ‘elders’.

2. Two distinct species or kinds of elders, ‘Those that rule well, and those that labor in word and doctrine,’ as pastor and doctor.

3. Here we have two participles expressing these two kinds of elders, ‘ruling,’ ‘laboring,’ the first do only rule, the second do also labor in Word and doctrine.

4. Here are two distinct articles, distinctly annexed to these two participles, ὁι προεστωτες, ὁι κοπιωντες, ‘They that rule, they that labor’.

5. Here is an eminent discretive particle set betwixt these two kinds of elders; these two participles, these two articles evidently distinguishing one from the other, viz. μαλιστα, especially they that labor, etc. And wheresoever this word μαλιστα is used in the New Testament, it is used to distinguish thing from thing, or person from person, as Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Tim. 4:10; Tit. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:13; 2 Pet. 2:20; Acts 20:38. In all which places, the word ‘especially’ is used as a discretive particle, to distinguish one thing from another or one person from another; and therefore being applied here to persons, must necessarily distinguish person from person, officer from officer.

It is absurd to say, says Dr. [William] Whitaker, that this text is to be understood of one and the same elder.¹ If a man should say, ‘All the students in the university are worthy of double honor, especially, they that are professors of divinity,’ he must necessarily understand it of two sorts of students. Or if a man should say, ‘All gentlemen that do service for the kingdom in their counties are worthy of double honor, especially they that do service in the parliament,’ this must needs be understood of different persons.

¹ Whitaker, in his lectures, as he refers to the refutation of Downame Sheervodius, cited by the author [Calderwood] of Altar of Damascus, ch. 12, pp. 925-26.

We are not ignorant that Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop King, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Downame and others labor to fasten diverse other interpretations upon these words, which would be over-tedious here to rehearse. Only thus much we crave leave to say, which we desire may be seriously weighed, that all other senses that are given of these words are either such as are disagreeing from the literal and grammatical construction, or such as fall into one of these two absurdities, either to maintain a non-preaching ministry or a lazy-preaching ministry to deserve double honor. Archbishop Whitgift, by ‘the elder that rules well,’ understands a reader that is not a preacher. (Whitgift against Cartwright) Dr. King (in a sermon of his in print), a bishop ruling and not preaching, which is to say that a non-preaching minister deserves double honor.

Dr. Bilson says that the words are to be understood of two sorts of elders, and that the meaning is that the elder that rules well and preaches is worthy of double honor, especially they that labor, that is, that preach abundantly, that do κοπιαν, labor as a waterman at his oar (De perpetua Eccl. gubernat.), which is as much as if he had said that a lazy minister, or a seldom-preaching minister deserves double honor. For all preachers are in Scripture required κοπιαν, to labor abundantly, 1 Thess. 5:11; 1 Cor. 3.8, where the same word is used that is here expressed. If the apostle had meant to have distinguished them by their extraordinary labor, he would rather have said μοχθουντες, than κοπιωντες, for other-where he uses μοχθος as a degree of painful labor above κοπος, which is put for common labor, Rom. 16:12.

Dr. Downame and others interpret the words of one and the same elder, thus, ‘the rulers that rule well are worthy of double honour, especially they that labour;’ that is (say they) especially they laboring, or especially because they labor. (2 Cor. 11:27; 1 Thess. 2:9) And so they make their laboring to be the chief cause of their double honor. But this interpretation is against the literal meaning, for the Greek is not ει κοπιωσιν, if they labor, but μαλιστα ὁι κοπιωντες, especially they that labor. Here is a participle with an article, and a discretive particle, which can never be rightly and literally translated causatively.

And therefore we conclude, together with our reformed divines, that this text according to the proper and grammatical construction of it does hold forth unto all unprejudiced Christians a ruling elder distinct from a teaching elder (Beza, in 1 Tim. 5:17; Piscator, in loc.; Calvin, in loc.), which is the thing we undertook to prove.

Besides these three Scriptures thus expounded, we shall briefly offer one more, and that is Mt. 18:17, where the offended brother is bid to ‘tell the Church, etc.’ In which words the whole power of excommunication is placed by Christ in the Church. The great question is, what is meant by ‘Church’? Here we take for granted:

1. That by ‘Church’ is not meant the civil magistrate, as Erastus fondly imagines, for this is utterly contrary to the purpose of Christ and the aim of that discipline here recommended to be used, which is the gaining of our brother unto repentance, whereas the aim of the civil magistrate is not the spiritual good properly and formally of the offender, but the public good of the commonwealth. And besides, it is a language unknown in Scripture to call the magistrate ‘the Church’; and it is an exposition purposely invented to overthrow all ecclesiastical government.

2. That by ‘Church’ is meant primarily and especially the particular congregation, we do not say only, but firstly and especially. Hence we argue, if the power of excommunication be placed in the particular church, then either in the minister alone, or in the minister and whole congregation, or in the minister and elders chosen by the congregation.

But not in the minister alone, who being but one man can no more be called a ‘church’ than one man can be called ‘many’, or a member called a ‘body’. For one person cannot be called a ‘Church’ (says Bellarmine himself: Non enim una persona potest dici Ecclesia cum Ecclesia sit populus & Regnum Dei), seeing the church is the people and kingdom of God. It is certain that the Church here spoken of is a certain number met together, for it is said, ‘Where two or three are gathered together, etc.’

Nor in the minister and whole congregation, for God, who is the God of order, not of confusion, has never committed the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to a promiscuous multitude; the Scripture divides a congregation into rulers and saints, into governors and governed (Heb. 13:17, 24); and if all be governors, who will be left to be governed? And besides, if the collective body of a Church be the governors, then women and servants must govern as well as others.

And therefore we conclude that by ‘Church’ must needs be meant the minister and ruling-elders, which are the officers we are enquiring after.

And this is no new interpretation, but agreed unto by ancient and modern writers. Chrysostom says by ‘Church’ is meant the προεστωτες, ‘the rulers of the Church’ (Chrysostom, upon Mt. 18); Cameron, the college of presbyters (Cameron, de Ecclesia, upon Mt. 18); others, the ecclesiastical senate. These are called a ‘Church’ for four reasons:

1. Because it is usual in the Old Testament (to which our Savior here alludes, as appears by the words ‘publican’ and ‘heathen’) to call the assembly of princes and elders a ‘Church’, Num. 35:12, 24-25 with Dt. 1:16; 1 Chron. 13:2-3 with 28:1-2 & 29:1, 6; Dt. 31:28, 30; 1 Kn. 8:1-2, 55; Num. 5:2 compared with Lev. 13:15.

2. Because they manage Church affairs in the name of Christ, and of the Church, and are servants of the Church as well as of Christ.

3. Because they are, as it were, the eyes and ears of the Church; and therefore as the body is said to see or hear, when as the eyes and ears alone do see and hear, so the Church is said to see, hear and act that which this senate ecclesiastical does see, hear and act.

4. Because they represent the Church; and it is a common form of speech to give the name of that which is represented to that which represents it, as we say that to be done by the whole kingdom which is done by a full and free parliament. Hence we might further argue: If the college of presbyters represent the Church, then it must be made up of ruling-elders, as well as ministers. For ministers alone cannot represent the Church, the Church consisting not of ministers alone, but of ministers and people, who are part of the Church as well as ministers, and are so called, Acts 15:3-4.

…
Three things we shall desire to add, as a conclusion of this discourse:

1. That there are prints of the ruling-elder remaining amongst us even at this day, for as the overseers of every parish have a resemblance of the deacon, so the church-warden has some foot-steps of our ruling-elder, though we must needs confess that this office has been much abused and we could desire it might be laid aside and the true Scripture-ruling-elder set up in his place.

2. That the prelatical divines, which are such great adversaries to the ruling-elder, do yet notwithstanding hold and prove that men of abilities which are not ministers are to be admitted into general councils, because that in the synod of Jerusalem, not only the apostles, but elders and brethren did sit and vote, because this was practiced in the Old Testament and because that this was practiced in the councils held afterwards in the Church of Christ, as appears out of Eusebius, Sozomen and Theodoret, and by the subscriptions of those councils done by men, not ministers, as well as others. (Sutlivius, de Concil. ab 1, ch. 8 says that among the Jews, Seniores tribuum, ‘the elders of the tribes,’ did sit with the priests in judging controversies of the Law of God. Hence he argues against Bellarmine, that so it ought to be in the Christian Church also, because the privilege of Christians is no less then the priviledge of the Jews.)

Hence we might argue: If other men besides ministers are by God’s Word, even in the judgment of the prelatical divines, to be admitted into the greatest assemblies and councils of the Church, much more are they by the same right to be admitted into particular congregations, to sit and vote with the minister in the government of the Church.

3. Add thirdly, that even in the bishops’ days, for these many hundred years there have been ruling-elders in the Church, for the chancellors, commissaries, officials and such others were all of them governors of the Church and had the power of suspension and excommunication; and yet were few of them, if any, ministers of the Word: And it seems to us to be a great curse of God that lies upon men’s spirits that could willingly submit to chancellors and commissaries, who did nothing else but pick their purses and tyrannize over their bodies and estates, and yet will not submit unto the ruling-elder now established, who seeks no other interest but the interest of Christ and meddles not with men’s bodies or estates and desires nothing but to be helpful to the ministers of Christ, to keep their congregations in unity, piety and verity.”

The Power of Ordination of Rulings Elders Comes from a Presbytery

The power of ordination comes from a presbytery though only the implicit consent of the presbytery is needed for such a valid ordination in regularly constituted churches. This power may be delegated to sessions, whether explicitly or implicitly, by way of Church law or a book of Church order.

The English presbyterians directly after Westminster had the practice of their presbyteries examining and approving Ruling Elders elected by congregations as is seen in the instance of the Manchester Classis (Presbytery) on Aug. 14 & Sept. 11, 1649 on pp. 119 & 121 of ed. William A. Shaw, Minutes of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis, 1646-1660, Part 2 New Series, vol. 22 (Chetham Society, 1831).

The reason for all this, per Scripture and classical presbyterianism, is that presbytery is the root of Church government. See also ‘Power for Ordaining Deacons comes from Presbytery’.

The Office of Ruling Elder is for Life, though Elders may Serve by Rotation

Order of

Quotes 4
Articles 2

Quotes

Order of

2nd Book of Discipline
Gillespie
Rutherford
Pagitt

1600’s

The Scottish 2nd Book of Discipline 1578

ch. 6, ‘Of Elders & their Office’

“2. …Elders once lawfully called to the office, and having gifts of God meet to exercise the same, may not leave it again. Albeit such a number of elders may be chosen in certain congregations, that one part of them may relieve another for a reasonable space, as was among the Levites under the law in serving of the temple. The number of elders in every congregation cannot well be limited, but should be according to the bounds and necessity of the people.”

George Gillespie

An Assertion of the Government of Scotland… (Edinburgh, 1641), pt, 1

ch. 14, pp. 104-6

“As for the maintenance and the continuance of the office of ruling elders, we love not unnecessary multiplication of questions, let every Church do herein what they find most convenient.

The manner of our Church in these things is such as best befits the condition of the same, and such as cannot be in reason condemned; Neither is a stipend, nor continuance in the function till death, essential to the ministry of the Church, but separable from the same.

The Levites of old served not at all times, but by course, and when they were 50 years old, they were wholly liberat[ed], from the burden and labor (though not from the attendance) of the Levitical service; and ministers may still upon the Church’s permission, for lawful reasons and urgent necessities, be absent a whole year, and longer too, from their particular charges.

The apostles, when they were first sent through Judea, took no stipend, Mt. 10:8-9. Neither did Paul take any at Corinth, 1 Cor. 9:18. The ministers among the Waldenses work with their hands for their maintenance. The old patriarchs were priests and preachers to their families, and maintained themselves by the work of their hands, feeding of flocks, tilling the ground, etc.

These things I do not mention as rules, to be followed by us, but to show, that the intermission of the exercise of the ministry, the want of maintainance and laboring with the hands, are not altogether repugnant, nor inconsistent with the nature of the vocation of the ministers of the Word, but in some cases hic & nunc [here and now], may be most approveable in them: much more in ruling elders.

The revenues of our Church are so small that they cannot spare stipends to ruling elders, which makes them willing to serve without stipends; and lest they should be overburdened with this their service, though they be chosen and called to be ruling elders as long as they live, at least till they merit to be deposed, yet our book of policy [Second Book of Discipline] allows them that ease of intermission and serving by course which was allowed to the Levites of old in the Temple.

The double honor which the apostle commands to give unto elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5:17, needs not to be expounded of maintenance and obedience; for by double honor we may either simply understand much honor, or by way of comparison double honor in respect of the widows, whom he had before commanded to honor, 1 Tim. 5:3, as Calvin expounds the place. Both these interpretations does Oecumenius give upon the same place.”

Postscript, p. 5

“The second defect which he [an opponent] wishes supplied is that the temporary ruling elders may be made perpetual and for life… This I assent unto providing he admit a distinction betwixt the office itself, and the exercise of the same. The office of a ruling elder ought to be for his life no less than the pastors; yet must we not condemn those Churches which dispense with the intermission of their actual attendance for a certain space, and permit them to exercise their office by course, as the Levites did of old, whose example himself here takes for a pattern.”

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (London, 1642), p. 290 Rutherford overlooks the term ‘lay-elders’ here from the opponent.

“Question [Objection] 4: But the ancients knew no lay-elders.

Answer: Nor do we de jure [by right] know them [as a standing and universal law in all cases], they are Church-men, and should be for all their lifetime entertained upon the Church’s charges; what our Church de facto [in actual fact] does tolerate by reason of our Church’s poverty, is another question.”

Ephraim Pagitt

Heresiography, or a Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times (London: Wilson, 1645), ‘Of the Brownists’, 9. ‘Criminate the Dutch and French Church’, pp. 54-55

“They [the Brownists] are as malevolent to Dutch and French Churches as to us: many crimes they do lay upon them, as for example:

…
7. Their elders change yearly, which is not according to the doctrine of the apostles;”

Articles

Not Wholly Recommended

Murray, John – ‘The Ordination of Elders: Some Arguments Against Term Eldership’ being pp. 23-25 of The Presbyterian Guardian, Feb., 1955. Also reprinted as ‘Arguments Against Term Eldership’ in Works, vol. 2, ch. 29, pp. 351-356.

Note the discrepancy between Murray’s position and that of the Church of Scotland and Gillespie above. Murray begins his article by distinguishing two positions (both of which are wrong), he arguing for the latter:

(1) Elders are elected and ordained to the office for a limited period of time, or a term (and then they cease to be elders);

(2) “election and ordination should have in view permanent tenure and exercise of the office,” that is, for a lifetime.

While Murray allows for deposition from the office due to immorality or inability to continue in it, yet he does not speak of allowing an intermission of service or functions, due to any number of concerns in life. He says, “we may not separate the office from its functions.”

Murray also makes the mistake that if an elder needs to move away from that particular church, then “It is not feesible for the elder to retain his office…” This is a principle of congregationalism. The presbyterians distinguished between ordination and installation in a charge. The elder remains an elder, but would no longer be installed at that charge, though may be installed elsewhere into another charge.

Murray notes: “It is true that the practice of ordaining ruling elders for a limited period has a long history in Reformed Churches. Many interesting facts could be brought to light if that history were to be traced.”

Reformed Reader – ‘Arguments Against Term Eldership’ 7 paragraphs

This article summarizes Murray’s argument in his article above.

Ruling Elders Ideally Ought to be Paid if Possible

1 Tim. 5:17-18

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”

Quotes

George Gillespie

Assertion of the Government of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1641), Part 1, ch. 14, pp. 104-6

“As for the maintenance and the continuance of the office of ruling elders, we love not unnecessary multiplication of questions, let every Church do herein what they find most convenient.

…
The apostles, when they were first sent through Judea, took no stipend, Mt. 10:8-9. Neither did Paul take any at Corinth, 1 Cor. 9:18. The ministers among the Waldenses work with their hands for their maintenance. The old patriarchs were priests and preachers to their families, and maintained themselves by the work of their hands, feeding of flocks, tilling the ground, etc.

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable and Temperate Plea, p. 290 1642 Rutherford overlooks the term ‘lay-elders’ here from the opponent.

“Question [Objection] 4: But the ancients knew no lay-elders.

Elders may be Rebuked by Lay-Persons & the Younger in some Circumstances

Order of

Intro
Quotes

Intro

1 Tim. 5:1, ‘Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father,’ is taken as an absolute by some, such that elders are never to be rebuked. Yet this phrase is evidently conditioned by the rest of Scripture and natural law, just as there may be situations in which it is right and necessary to rebuke one’s father. The phrase in 1 Tim. 5:1 is no more absolute than the phrase which comes after it, “and the younger men as brethren.”

Calvin translated the verse as, “Do not harshly rebuke an elder” (Commentary on 1 Tim. 5). This is what the root-Greek-word ἐπιπλήσσω means (see Logeion), as over 20 Bible translations translate it. The term is clearly contrasted with the entreaty, παρακαλέω, which follows. Yet this latter term is often translated as “exhort” (Logeion; as Calvin) and may mean “demand” or “require”.

Those who believe it is sinful to ever rebuke or reprove an elder typically conceive of all authority as of jurisdiction. If an elder is “over” one, then one has no authority to rebuke that person, as only those over him (or possibly on par with him) may do so. This is erroneous by natural law (which Scripture upholds): a person of less status or power is responsible for using that unto the Lord and may yet rebuke one of greater status and power or authority with the Lord’s light, truth and will when morally necessary, and should. All power, no matter how small, is to be used in the direction of God’s will.

Circumstances occur where, for the good of the elder as a man, it is right and needful to rebuke him as any man for his own well-being in salvation and before the Lord. An elder is never less than a man. What applies to all men applies to elders, though in a moderate way due to the honor that should be given them according to the law of nature expressed in the 5th Commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother.”

It is likely that some of Job’s friends, or those he was speaking before, were older than he (Job 15:10; 32:6), yet see Job’s many rebukes of them throughout his book (e.g. Job 12:1-5; 13:1-7; 16:1-4; 19:1-5).

Here are only a few of many relevant Bible verses:

Lev. 19:17 “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.”

Mt. 18:15 “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone:”

Jn. 18:19-23 “The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, ‘I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.’

And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, ‘Answerest thou the high priest so?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?’

Acts 7:2, 51 “And he [Stephen, a deacon] said [to elders], ‘Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken… Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye…”

Eph. 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Jude 1:9 “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke thee.'”

Jude 22-23 “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.”

Quotes

Calvin
Beza
Hall
Gillespie
Rutherford
Baxter
Leigh
Trapp
Poole

John Calvin

Commentary on 1 Tim. 5:1

“‘Do not harshly rebuke an elder.’ He now recommends to Timothy gentleness and moderation in correcting faults. Correction is a medicine, which has always some bitterness, and consequently is disagreeable. Besides, Timothy being a young man, his severity would have been less tolerable, if it had not been somewhat moderated.

‘But exhort him as a father.’ The Apostle enjoins him to reprove elder persons as parents; and he even employs the milder term, ‘exhort.’ It is impossible not to be moved with reverence, when we place before our eyes our father or our mother; in consequence of which, instead of harsher vehemence, we are immediately influenced by modesty. Yet it ought to be observed, that he does not wish old men to be spared or indulged in such a manner as to sin with impunity and without correction; he only wishes that some respect should be paid to their age, that they may more patiently bear to be admonished.

‘The younger as brethren.’ Even towards younger persons he wishes moderation to be used, though not in an equal degree; for the vinegar must always be mingled with oil, but with this difference, that reverence should always be shown to older persons, and equals should be treated with brotherly gentleness.”

Theodore Beza

Annotations on 1 Tim. 5

“Of keeping measure in private reprehensions according to the degrees of ages and kinds.”

Joseph Hall

Paraphrase on the Hard Texts of Scripture, on 1 Tim. 5:1

“Do not take up too sharply and roundly those that are ancient in years, but entreat them plausibly and gently, as they fathers in age; neither be too harsh to the younger men, but treat with them as with brethren.”

George Gillespie

English Popish Ceremonies ([1637]), pt. 4, ch. 3, p. 7

“The fifth [circumstance] is, cur [why]: If I rebuke my brother for his fault, out of my love to him, and desire to reclaim him, the action is good: If out of hatred and sp•…ne, the action is evil.”

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (London, 1642)

p. 43

“But hence is not proved [by congregationalists], because the Colossians are as private Christians to admonish or rebuke their pastor Archippus, Therefore the body of believers have the power of the keys to depose and excommunicate…”

[The premise of this argument is presumably granted as true, though the conclusion does not follow.]

pp. 43-44

“if all private Christians… are to teach, admonish, rebuke, comfort, and edify one another in a private and popular way: any may see, it is one thing for one member of the body to help one another by exhorting and rebuking (which is a work of common charity)… as an act of obedience to the law of nature and common charity…”

p. 94

“if three be believers happen to be an independent Church [as in congregationalism], and then the plaintiff rebuking the offender according to Christ’s rule, Mt. 18:16, before the Brethren who are witnesses, he shall tell the Church, before he tell the Church…”

ch. 9, pp. 98-99

“The faults of the [Church] guides are not your faults who are private members; you are to keep public communion in the public ordinances of Christ, but not to take part with ‘their unfruitful works, but rather to reprove them.’ [Eph. 5:11]”

ch. 10, p. 149

“Augustine says with us, we are in mercy ‘to rebuke what we cannot amend, and to bear it patiently.'”

p. 161

“This gives us occasion to speak a little of the communion with other men’s sins: We partake these ways of the Church’s sins… 5. Those that do not rebuke sin.”

p. 258

“All divines, the fathers, as Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Thomas, Bannes, Suarez, Vasquez, Valentia, make private exhorting and rebuking our fallen brother a duty of the
law of nature… to reduce him whom we understand God has permitted to wander…”

Richard Baxter

Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), ‘Objections Answered’

“I know none so liable to such a charge as myself, who yet am ready to give an account to any brother that is offended; and I believe that they ought to rebuke me personally and hear my answer, before they withdraw from me or censure me, much more so [regarding] many others for my sake.”

Edward Leigh

Annotations on 1 Tim. 5:1

“‘Rebuke not an Elder.’ Do not handle him roughly, and as it were strike him, as the Greek word signifies.”

John Trapp

“‘Rebuke not an elder.’ Lash him not with the scourge of the tongue, as a puny boy, μη επιληξης. Ne plagam inflixeris. Jerk him not as the pope did Henry IV of France in the person of his ambassador, or as the bishops and their shavelings did Henry II of England till the blood followed. This is not civil usage for an elder.”

Matthew Poole

“‘Rebuke not an elder;’… The word translated ‘rebuke’ is translated too softly; it should be, ‘Rebuke not too roughly,’ as appears by the opposite phrase, and indeed the word properly signifies to beat or lash. Rebuke him not but with a decent respect to his age.

‘But entreat him as a father;’ so that thy reproofs may look more like counsels and exhortations than rebukes.

‘And the younger men as brethren;’ prudence also must be used as to the younger men, ministers in rebuking them should remember that they are brethren, and treat them accordingly, not too imperiously.”

On Accusations of an Elders without 2 or 3 Witnesses

“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.”

1 Tim. 5:19

Intro

1 Tim. 5:19 is rightly taken as speaking specifically to Timothy as an evangelist, church planter, with extraordinary authority over elders.

Hence a church court, which has a public responsibility, and is in some ways limited therein, while it may and should investigate any accusation with reasonable evidence, ought not to receive and charge the accusation against an elder except with two or three witnesses, or the equivelent by general equity, as John Gill writes below.

That though is very different from personal situations, where natural law informs that a person sinned against by an elder (while he or she should consider the appropriateness of the process in Mt. 18:15-17) may take such precautions and defenses as to appropriately tell others, lest sin and abuse is tolerated simply because there are never any further witnesses (this being to the culprit’s favor and possible design).

The verse doesn’t say that a person in an individual capacity should not make an accusation without witnesses, nor that another person should not receive it in their individual capacity. Rather the hearer of an accusation against an elder should exercise their conditional and rational consideration (not being obligated to believe it because one person said it), further actions, or not, being left to natural discretion.

Quote

John Gill

Commentary on 1 Tim. 5:19

“The sense is, not that judgment shall not pass against him but by such a number of witnesses, or that the evidence upon his trial shall consist of such a number; for this is no other than what ought to be in the case of a private member, and of every man, according to Deuteronomy 19:15.

But the sense is, that the affair of an elder shall not be put upon a trial, much less sentence pass, until it has been privately proved against him, by proper testimonies, beyond all exception; only in such a case, should a church admit a charge against its elder.

The reason of this rule is, because of his high office and the honour of the church, which is concerned in his, as well as of religion; for it carries in it some degree of scandal for such a person to be charged, even though he may be cleared.”

On Women Elders

See also ‘Female Pastors?’.

Article

1900’s

McCartney, Clarence E. – ‘The Place of Woman in the Church’ in ed. J.R. Fleming, Proceedings of the Eleventh General Council of the Alliance of Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System, held at Pittsburgh, 1921 (Edinburgh: Office of the Alliance, 1922), pp. 157-66

“To my mind the whole subject is to be decided not by the
exegesis of any difficult passage in St. Paul’s letters, but by common sense, by expediency, and by a regard for the law of nature and by what the Church has found to be good in the past.

Now, you may interpret those passages as you please, but is not this the fact, that the principle there laid down has been accepted as sound by the Church in all generations? Take even those Churches that have long admitted women to ordination on the same footing as men. Why is it that there is no tendency to increase the number of women as ministers? There must be some great and almost indefinable law of nature that is against the thing…”

Historical

Early & Medieval Church

eds. Madigan, Kevin & Carolyn Osiek – Ordained Women in the Early Church: a Documentary History (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005)

ch. 8, ‘Women Presbyters’, pp. 163-202 ToC

“The title of presbyter is always subject to contextual interpretation. Whether of males or females, it can refer to an elderly person… the female title presbytera can also sometimes mean the wife of a male presbyter…

…synods and councils, both East and West, repeatedly condemned the practice of women presbyters… the Acts of Philip and the Martyrdom of Matthew [both apochryphal] do not argue for female presbyters but rather assume their existence.” – p. 163

See the conclusion on p. 198.

Appendix C, ‘Locations of [Female] Presbyters’, pp. 210-11

On the Authority & Functions of Ruling Elders

Ruling Elders do not have the Authority for Preaching, or Laboring in, or Ministering, the Word in Public Worship by Office

Order of Quotes

French Reformed
Gillespie
Rutherford

1600’s

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 8

Digression 1, p. 171

“This number of preaching elders in one city, together with those elders which in the same city labored for discipline only ([Johann] Gerard [a Lutheran], Theological Places, tome 6, pp. 134, 136), made up that company which the apostle, 1 Tim. 4:14, calls a presbytery, and which gave ordination to the ministers of the Church.”

Digression 4, p. 184

“…according to the Scripture phrase it is termed a ‘presbytery’. It is made up of the pastor or pastors of every congregation, together with those governing elders which labor there (not in doctrine, but) in discipline only: of which things, we have spoken before (above, Digression 1 [pp. 161-2, 170-1]).”

An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland... (Edinburgh, 1641), pt. 1, ch. 2, ‘Of the Function of Ruling Elders…’, p. 15

“The power of order alone shall make the difference betwixt the pastor and the ruling elder; for by the power of order, the pastor does preach the Word, minister the sacraments, pray in public, bless the congregation, celebrate marriage, which the ruling elder cannot.”

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable & Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland… (London, 1642)

ch. 19

p. 286

“…a well-governing elder, who cannot preach the Word and pray…”

pp. 290-1

“Question 6: Beza gives the keys to both pastors and elders. Cartwright denies the keys to any except only to pastors. But Daniel Nilius, the keys (says he) were given to Peter, ratione officii, by his office, and not to the apostles only, but also to all who were to be sent to preach and govern.

Answer: The keys by the preaching of the gospel, potestas concionalis clavium [the preaching power of the keys], were given to Peter as representing all pastors and doctors, tanquam subiecto adaequato [as an adequate subject]: The keys by way of disciplinary binding and loosing were given to Peter, tanquam, subiecto virtuali [as a virtual subject], representing not only pastors, but also doctors and ruling elders, who were to be called and sent of God.

Question 7. How can any voice in matters of religion, but only pastors, for ruling elders are not pastors. So [Richard] Field [an Anglican].

Answer: It is Jesuit-like to reason thus with Bellarmine, who says it is a pastoral act to define in councils; and therefore none should teach in council (says Panormitan in the Council of Basil) but prelates who are the pillars and keys of Heaven. So said Eccius. But the Council of Basil thought not so, nor the Greek Church, for whom Nilus speaks, alleging others whom it concerns should voice also.

2. Matters of discipline concern all, Ergo [therefore], elders representing the people should voice.

3. Suppose that the suffrage and voice of a pastor, and of an elder be voices different only in diverse relations to diverse officers, to wit, the pastor and the elder; yet in the matter of bearing weight in the conscience from force of truth, and not from the authority of men, they are equal; and therefore ruling elders having knowledge and light, and withal authority of office may well have voices:

But it follows not hence that these who have knowledge are formal canon-makers, because the decrees and constitutions of synods lay two obligations upon the people: One for the matter, and so in respect that in the moral part thereof they must be agreeable to the Word, they bind the consciences to an obedience of conscience. 2. They impose an ecclesiastical tie from the authority of the council and canon-makers, and so they require subjection or obedience of reverence for the authority-official that is in the canon-makers: The second command lays on the first bond or tie, and the first command lays on the other bond and tie.”

ch. 20, Whether or not the government of the Church of Scotland can be proved by God’s Word to be lawful?

11th Article, Elders and Deacons

“Elders help the pastors in governing, but labor not in the Word and doctrine, 1 Tim 5:17, and yet visit the sick, oversee the ways and manners of the people, and so rule with diligence, Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28, and judge with pastors and doctors, Matt 18:18-20.”

Ruling Elders may perform some Acts of Teaching

Rutherford, Samuel – Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 1, ch. 10, Objection 2, p. 330

Ruling Elders do Not have the Authority for Congregational Prayer by Office Pastors do

Westminster’s Form of Presbyterial Church Government

“Pastors.

…
First, it belongs to his office,

To pray for and with his flock, as the mouth of the people unto God,[g] Acts 6:2-4, and 20:36, where preaching and prayer are joined as several parts of the same office.[h] The office of the elder (that is, the pastor) is to pray for the sick, even in private, to which a blessing is especially promised; much more therefore ought he to perform this in the public execution of his office, as a part thereof.[i]

[g] Acts 6:2-4; Acts 20:36
[h] James 5:14,15
[i] 1 Cor. 14:15,16“

George Gillespie

An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland... (Edinburgh, 1641), pt. 1, ch. 2, ‘Of the Function of Ruling Elders…’, p. 15

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (London, 1642)

p. 194 (bottom)
p. 197 (top)
p. 272 (Query 2)

ch. 19, p. 286

“…a well-governing elder, who cannot preach the Word and pray…”

Ruling Elders are Not able to Confer Power in the Ordination of a Pastor

Westminster’s Form of Presbyterial Church Government

“Touching the Doctrine of Ordination

…
Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong. (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; Acts 20:17,28)
…

Touching the Power of Ordination

…
The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.
…

Concerning the Doctrinal Part of Ordination of Ministers

…
4. Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by these preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong. (1 Tim. 5:22; Acts 14:23; 13:3)
…
10. Preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively. (1 Tim. 4:14)”

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (1642)

p. 80 (bottom)

p. 290

“Question 5: How is it that your ruling-elders do not give imposition of hands and bless pastors when they are ordained, and so the lesser should bless the greater? So the author of Survey. So Dr. Field.

Answer: If they judicially consent to imposition of hands, it is sufficient. 2. There is no inconvenience that a ruling elder, as a part of the presbytery, bless one who is not yet a pastor, but to be ordained a pastor: For the ordainer as he is such is greater than the ordained.”

On a Consensus Practice about Ruling Elders when Parties cannot Agree about them or the Details

Quotes

1600’s

Richard Baxter

Intro

In seeking a consensus practice amongst men of different views about ruling elders, Baxter:

First lays out a practice about ruling elders that may be practiced and consented to by all.

Second, he defends that even those who do not hold that ruling elders are a Biblically ordained office (e.g. many episcopalians), or appear in the New Testament at all, yet may and should agree that laymen can be agreed upon, appointed (or “ordained”) and delegated to many-such functions by a lesser ecclesiastical (albeit not divine) right (by those who have Church-power to do it), and so fill the substance of ruling elder functions, which are beneficial and may be justified upon that account. It is not immoral to call such persons “ruling elders,” and it may be fitting and appropriate to do so.

Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653)

The Propositions agreed on by the Associated Ministers of the County of Worcester and some Adjacent Parts, n.p.

“17. It having been the custom of the Church in the apostles’ days, to have orindarily many officers in a Church, and the private part of the ministerial duty being so exceeding great and of indispensible necessity where it can be performed, and also because it is less satisfactory and convenient for one minister alone to try cases where more may be had, we therefore judge it needful to use all lawful means to procure more ministers or elders than one in each church, even proportionable to the number of souls and greatness of the Word;

And if for want [lack] of men or maintenance, there cannot learned men be obtained, we judge it fit to take the assistance of sober, orthodox, judicious persons of competent ability for private instruction and oversight, and ordained to this work, though defective in learning and less able to publicly teach, and who may leave public speaking to him that is more able and do the more of the less public work, and that such if other maintenance be wanting, may lawfully and fitly labor with their hands:

And as long as we agree that these elders are ordained church officers, and what shall be their work, there needs to be no breach among us, though we determined not of their power in sacraments and whether their office be the same with the teaching elders: Whilst we agree in practice, we may leave men’s several principles in such a difficult controverted point to their own judgments…”

An Explication of Some Passages in the Propositions, pp. 5-9

“8. Concerning the 17th Proposition (which many will stumble at), I desire you to observe these things:

1. That as we avoid the titles of lay-elders and preaching-elders, so we do purposely avoid the determination of that controversy: Whether Christ has appointed ecclesiastical elders, distinct in office from teaching-elders, having no authority to preach, baptize or administer the Lord’s Supper, though they have gifts?

I confess my own private opinion is that neither Scripture nor antiquity did know any such church-officers: But as I so much reverence and value the contrary minded, as not to expect that my judgment should stand in any competition with theirs, or in the least to sway any man to my opinion from theirs (though upon the concurrent judgment of so many learned men that are of the same opinion with me, I might reasonably expect that other men’s reputation should create no prejudice), so it is nothing to my brethren, nor the sense of our Agreement, what my private opinion is.

We are not so unconscionably self-conceited or divisive as to think we must or may reject all those from our communion that differ in this point from us: or that it is a matter of so great moment that may hinder our fraternal and peaceable Association.

2. We have therefore agreed of the work of assisting-elders, and leave the discussion of their further authority and distinction of their office from teaching-elders, to others.

3. And that each party may well agree to this Proposition, without forsaking their principles, is beyond doubt. For the presbyterians and the congregational party, they both are for such elders as shall rule and not administer sacraments; and though some of one sort [congregationalists], say they may preach:

1. They say not that they must preach where the teaching-elders are well and present;

2. And perhaps it is because they would allow another gifted member to do the like.

And for the episcopal divines, their practice and their writings prove what I say:

For they have ever since the Reformation allowed great numbers of readers in England, of far lower abilities than we express in our Propositions; such as never preached, and some that were fain to labour for their livings in secular employments, as this country knows. And though they allowed them to baptise and administer the Lord’s Supper [by delegation], yet they never affirmed that they must do it when there was an abler minister of the same church to do it. And in their writings they do maintain the lawfulness of placing such reading ministers in chapels or parish churches under able pastors.

So that it’s past doubt that we are all agreed that there may be such officers, or elders chosen to do the work that is here expressed. And if any think it a matter of so great necessity that we agree in our belief of these elders’ further power, as that we must not associate with those that agree not, I would intreat him to tell me why it is not in our Creed? or why it never was in the Creed of any Church? or whether no Church had ever a sufficient Creed so large as to contain all points of absolute necessity to salvation, or without which, we must avoid men’s society? or whether he dare yet put it in his Creed among fundamentals, or points of such necessity ‘I believe that lay or mere-ruling elders are, or are not Jure divino?’ Or whether he accuse not the Scripture itself of insufficiency for speaking so darkly of fundamentals themselves as that the most godly and learned are not able to understand it? And whether he lay not a ground of separation from multitudes of eminent learning and piety, yea from whole Churches which Christ Himself owns and will not allow us to separate from?

4. And observe further that the elders that we here speak of are only assistants to able preachers: we do not say that such may be allowed of alone where there is no other to preach (though what might be done in case of necessity, I will not determine). But if a great Church have one or two able men to preach publicly, and will moreover appoint some sober, godly, orthodox men to help them in private oversight, instruction, admonition and reproof; and if one call these ‘lay-elders’ or ‘ruling-elders,’ and another take them to be inferior ministers, as some sober chapel readers were, I would not quarrel about the notions or titles while we agree about the work to be done. Nor would I dare to reproach them with the name of dumb dogs on one side, or lay-elders (as dumb) on the other.

5. I thought meet also to tell you thus much of my own opinion; that it seems to me the best way (at our first ordering of our churches according to these Propositions) to take in none but school-masters, physicians, or other learned men to be elders (where such are to be had that are meet), and for those of our abler hearers that are unlearned, that it will be fittest first to try them in the office of deacons: both because the office of deacons is most unquestionable to all sorts and parties; and so it will avoid the reproaches of dissenters: and because the apostles made deacons before they ordained any fixed elders of particular churches; and they made abler men deacons than any of us are; and therefore none may think the office to be below him; and because it is orderly to ascend by degrees: and the apostles’ words, 1 Tim. 4:8-13, together with the constant expressions and practice of antiquity, do show that this is a degree to the eldership…

And the danger of misguiding and dividing our congregations by men of weak judgments is so great that I think it much fitter to try them first in an office of known inferiority (for all confess that deacons should be guided by the elders) wherein they may be as serviceable to the Church than to begin them in an office of mere power, wherein they will think their votes to be of equal authority with the most judicious teachers [Baxter did not hold them to be equal], and so may breed contentions or foment errors or factions in the church; and yet be less capable of doing service than the deacons are (See Mr. Noyes, Temple Measured, of the Office of Deacons and Elders).

This course therefore I have propounded to my brethren of this Association; and they think as I do… If any shall refuse the office of deacons as too mean for them, they shall thereby discover that pride that will prove them unfit to be either elders or deacons; and you will have cause to thank God that thereby a mischief to the Church is prevented, which might have followed if such unhumbled men had crept into authority.

6. But the great objection against this Proposition will be (by some) that we allow none to be elders but those that are ordained, and so overthrow mere-ruling elders. To which I answer:

1. These brethren must consider that we are forced for unity to speak indistinctly of all that are mere assisting elders and do not actually preach and administer sacraments, whether they take themselves to have authority to do more (as other ministers) or not: Now they will confess that such inferior or assisting ministers must be ordained: and we cannot now [formally] distinguish [them].

2. I never could learn that it is the judgment of presbyterians or congregational men that it is unlawful to ordain mere-ruling elders. And if they may do it, why should they not yield to it for peace, though they think not that they must do it?

3. I confess I know of no elders mentioned in Scripture without ordination and do despair of ever seeing it proved that the apostles did appoint two sorts of elders, one ordained and the other not ordained. The contrary I doubt not to prove by sufficient induction.

4. Deacons must be ordained that are inferior to elders; why then should not elders be ordained?

5. Let our brethren take heed lest they loose all their hold of that show they have in Scripture for mere-ruling elders (I mean quoad potestatem [as to the power], not quoad exercitium ordinarium [as to the ordinary exercise]), if they once disclaim all those as no such ruling elders who were ordained. It seems then that when the apostles ordained elders in every Church, and when Titus was left to ordain elders in every city, it was no mere-ruling elders that they ordained or were appointed to ordain!

6. I confess I am loath (without more reasons than I yet know) to give the intruders of the ministry so much encouragement as to tell them men may ordinarily be ruling elders without ordination?

For doubtless a man may much more preach up and down in public occasionally without ordination: I mean, more may be said for it. Even some of the most learned episcopal divines think that by the bishop’s allowance private men may preach, and that it belongs more to the pastor to take care what doctrine is taught his people than that himself be the teacher. And most allow the preaching of probationers. And if you add to this that there is no need of ordination to the office of church-governing, I know partly what will follow.

7. Yet a greater doubt is behind, and that is: How we would have these men ordained? I answer:

1. We have not determined of that: We purposely avoid the point of ordination because the distance between the episcopal divines and others is well known in that point: and we resolve not to put such controverted points into our Agreement, lest thereby we necessarily exclude the dissenters. Our business is not now (as is said) to reconcile differences in judgment: much less to divide from those that differ from us: but to practice unanimously so much as we are agreed in.

2. We leave therefore every man in this to his own judgment. Those that are for bishops may be ordained by them with a presbytery, if they can obtain it. Those that are against them, may be ordained by the Associated pastors of that Association, the president performing the action. Those that fear danger from the law of the land if they ordain without authority, may send men to some neighbor county that has authority. Those that will not use the name of ordination may yet use the thing: which is nothing but the solemn designation or appointment of a fit person to the office, by competent men: which is most fitly accompanied with prayer and imposition of hands, where they may be had.

3. To avoid some of these contests, if deacons only be first ordained, as I before mentioned, it will prevent the quarrels that some may else be drawn to by difference of judgment. For many moderate episcopal men will allow presbyters to ordain deacons that will not allow them to ordain presbyters. As for those that will say, These are no true officers, nor to be acknowledged (whether deacons or presbyters) who were not ordained by a bishop, and thereupon will take occasion for a schism in our congregations, I shall speak more fully to their satisfaction anon.”

‘Objections Answered’

“Yea in favor of lay-elders he [Hugo Grotius] asserts (having argued them not to be of divine institution, yet): 1. That they may be lawfully instituted by sovereigns, or by the Church on their permission. 2. That it may be proved by Scripture that this institution is not displeasing to God. 3. That there are examples in pious antiquity, either of this same way, or one very near it. 4. That it is no contemptible benefit that by these elders may be received.

But these [are] to exercise their office with several cautions: 1. Not claiming institution by divine precept. 2. Not usurping any of the power of the keys, nor of excommunication, further than excommunication belongs to the people (executively). 3. That the men be not unmeet. 4. Exercising no external jurisdiction but by public law. 5. Standing as mutable. Thus far Grotius.”

Related Pages

On Ecclesiastical Property

The Church Ministry

Reformed Books Online

Free, Biblical, Reformed, Historic Books & Articles Online

Ruling Elders