Since Thomas Cartwright delivered his sermons on Acts at the University of Cambridge in 1570, the fight for the reclamation of the Biblical office of Elder was a hallmark of Puritan attempts at reform.
The contention of the times was not whether there should be elders, for they agreed that this was an office ‘so plainly described and so weightily authorised in God’s word.’ Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church and instructed Titus to appoint them in every town (Acts.14:23; Titus.1:5). Furthermore, Paul repeatedly laid out significant qualifications for the office (Titus.1:5-9; 1 Tim.3:1-7.). Puritans of every type, including the Early Congregationalists, would call for the appointment of these biblical offices in the English Churches and the removal of the non-biblical offices such as bishops.
However, while all agreed Elders were necessary, the disagreements came regarding two matters. Firstly, whether elders should be appointed to every particular congregation and, secondly, how autonomously the elders were to exercise their rulership. The Congregational churches believed that the scriptures required every particular congregation to be equipped with its own elders, who would lead that congregation and only that congregation. The elders were not to rule in secret presbyteries, nor without the participation of the people through the church meeting; however, they were invested with the authority of Christ to lead in the areas of teaching, administering the sacraments, maintaining church discipline and welcoming new members.
John Cotton, the prominent Congregationalist minister and theologian in 17th-century New England, emphasised the role of Elders in the governance and spiritual health of the church. His views were shaped by a strong commitment to the Congregationalist model, where the local church had autonomy under Christ’s headship, but was led by a body of godly, ordained leaders—primarily the Elders. Cotton asserts that while the congregation holds certain liberties, the Elders possess the primary authority in church governance.
Congregationalists argued that church members should participate in the selection of men for the eldership. However, this does not mean that the Elders’ authority is derived from the congregation but is directly ordained by Christ. Cotton highlights the collaborative dynamic between Elders and the congregation. While Elders hold authority, the congregation participates in church decisions, such as the election of officers and the censure of offenders. It was the elders, in conjunction with the congregation, who were the ones to exercise authority in these matters. The early Congregationalists fought against the idea that they were a pure democracy, or that any member could do anything, which their opponents had charged them with. They spent much energy in showing that their churches were operated in a godly order; the people participated, but the elders led and exercised the official authority, and the people did not usurp this. This balance ensures that the church operates in unity and accordance with biblical principles.
“It was the elders, in conjunction with the congregation, who were the ones to exercise authority in these matters.”
This emphasis continued into the theology of the Cambridge Platform as well as the writers of the Savoy. The Cambridge Platform (1648) was a statement that contained the New England standard for Congregational Churches. The Savoy Declaration (1658) was a Congregationalist revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was incredibly similar in its theology, except on church polity where it instead presented a Congregational model. Wherein it is put forth that Elders are entrusted with the spiritual oversight of the church. They are to govern diligently and are accountable to Christ for their stewardship. Their duties include teaching, guiding the congregation, and maintaining church discipline. Wherever possible, there was to be a plurality of elders, as they were convinced was the biblical pattern for all churches (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 5:17).
While it was accepted that a church without elders may continue, for a time, this was seen as unhealthy in the long run and, furthermore, restricted the practice of the church. Cotton urged churches to pursue the appointment of qualified men to the office of Elder as soon as possible. He believed it was part of obedience to Christ’s order and for the church’s flourishing.
In the early Congregationalists’ theology, a church without elders could not lawfully administer the sacraments. It was the practice of Churches to not administer the sacraments until such time as lawfully ordained officers were appointed in the church. Cotton only allowed for the Elders to administer the Lord’s Supper; John Owen and the Savoy further restricted this to teaching elders that ‘none but a minister of the Word lawfully called can dispense them.’ This restriction is the same as the Westminster Confession and shows just one dimension of how essential elders were seen to be for the health and right operation of the church.
Furthermore, the elders took the lead in the admission of new members. It was their job to examine the candidate and to be satisfied that they were, in fact, Christian. They then led the church meeting and put forth the candidate for the church vote to accept them.
Similarly, Elders were also deeply involved in the spiritual and moral oversight of the congregation. They played a key role in administering church discipline, which was seen as essential for maintaining the holiness of the church. Church discipline in early Congregationalism often involved a system of corrective measures aimed at restoring members who had fallen into sin. Elders were those primarily involved in the process and in seeking to correct, exhort and restore the offender. During this process, they were responsible for making decisions about excommunication and reconciliation, which were then put before the Congregation for voting in the church meetings.
Conclusion
While Congregationalism granted authority to the gathered congregation, its great early leaders stressed the importance of Elders as divinely appointed leaders in guiding deliberations and maintaining order. Elders were not to be tyrants but shepherds, guiding the church toward God-honouring consensus and faithfulness. Overall, the early Congregationalists put forth a church structure where Elders, endowed with Christ’s authority, led the congregation, which, in turn, supports and collaborates with the Elders to uphold the church’s spiritual integrity.
This article was first published in the 2025 EFCC Annual Review.
One Response