Theories of the Eldership [pp. 449-472]

Theories of the Eldership.
the true character and importance of the ruling eldership. It
is their lay character which brings the lay element into our
form of government and imparts voice and power to the people;
indeed gives into their hands the controlling power in particular churches and sessions, and equal power in every other
court and in every department. These lay representatives
constitute the house of representatives united with the senate
in one body in all the courts of our church.
"Our divines," says Mr. George Gillespie in his Assertion of
the government of the Church of Scotland, Part I. chap. 4,
"prove against papists that some of these, whom they call
laics, ought to have a place in the assemblies of the church, by
this argument among the rest; because otherwise the whole
church could not be thereby represented. And it is plain
enough, that the church cannot be represented, except the
hearers of the word, which are the far greater part of the
church, be represented. By the ministers of the word they
cannot be represented more than the burghs can be represented
in parliament by the noblemen, or by the commissioners of
shires; therefore by some of their own kind must they be
represented, that is, by such as are hearers, and not preachers.
Now some hearers cannot represent all the rest except they
have a calling and commission thereto; and who can these be
but ruling elders? And again, when the Council of Trent was
first spoken of in the Diet at Wurtemburg, Anno 1522, all the
estates of Germany desired of Pope Adrian VI. that admittance might be granted, as well to laymen as to clergymen, 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, 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 laics also ought to have a decisive
voice in councils. If none but the ministers of the word should
sit and have a 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. A common cause ought to be concluded by common voices. But that which is treated of in councils, is a com
466
[JULY