What does the Bible say about church hierarchy?

Surely it naturally follows that if He, the blessed Savior and Head of the Church, is present in the midst, He is certainly there to direct and lead the Assembly and should rightly be given His place as the leader of the gathering and be depended upon as such. All eyes should be upon Him who has come to occupy the central place and every heart should be waiting upon Him to lead by the Holy Spirit. Let us not forget, also, that the One in the midst is Lord of all and the only one who has the right to exercise authority in the Assembly. "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" and "hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church" (Acts 2:36; Eph. 1: 22). Christ is Lord in the Assembly and should be owned as such and given His place as the only rightful leader and authority in the Church. Where He is owned as lord and leader, there will be subjection to Him and behavior consistent with His lordship; there will be rule and order according to the mind and will of God.

Overseers and deacons were local officials in the Church and must be distinguished from gifts. Elders and deacons might or might not have the gift of preaching or teaching. Such gift was quite independent of their special office. There might be, and were, many elders and deacons in any given church, and yet there was still the fullest and freest liberty for any one to exercise his gift in ministry when the whole Church came together in one place. Elders were not to preside in a public meeting, but to oversee, feed, and care for the flock of God (Acts 20:28).

The overseers then are exhorted by the apostle to tend or shepherd the assembly of God. Here again we see how strong is the contrast of scriptural truth with the system, which reigns today, of this congregation for one 'minister' and that for another. For of old the elders were all as overseers to tend the assembly, and here the whole of it in Ephesus. No doubt their duty was to carry on oversight where they resided; but it was to shepherd the church of God there, and not each one a part of it only.1 The largeness of the scriptural truth is as evident as the contractedness of men's arrangements ever since apostolic days. Men, in their wisdom, may have judged it necessary to allot a portion to this one and another to that one in the same city; but earthly prudence, however respectable and useful for present interests, is ever to be distrusted in divine things. When in fact the break-up of the flock of God came to pass, the clerical order which had crept in could not but pave the way for not schisms only, but sects, each with their governing functionaries. {1 We may see the same scriptural fact in Phil. 1:1, where King James's translators left in 'bishops', instead of adopting 'overseers' as in Acts 20:28. The cases are exactly parallel, as indeed a similar constitution prevailed wherever the apostles visited and supplied full order. The modern 'minister' of dissent is as unknown as the traditional 'diocesan'.}

Take the Congregationalists, who used to take their stand on the sufficiency of scriptures. Yet even they always fail at the first step, the choice of a preacher or pastor by the votes of the congregation. This being absolutely unrecognised in scripture, and in principle wholly opposed to what is found there (which shows the Lord giving gifts and God setting in the church as He will), decided the late Mr. Isaac Taylor, of Ongar, to abandon dissent. But it is certainly no improvement to admit the choice of a bishop or the nomination of a patron. Apostles, or their delegates, did choose or appoint elders; but they, according to scripture, have no successors. The gifts were always immediate from the Lord, and never required human appointment. He abides to give, not they to choose. Christendom pretends to choose without authority, and despises the gifts of Christ, save where they fall under its own unfounded and unscriptural usurpation.

Now it is indisputably according to scripture that the apostle did "choose" elders church by church (Acts 14:23), and that Titus was apostolically commissioned to "appoint" or establish elders city by city in Crete. This was "God's way for His people having bishops." It was not a question only of such qualities as 1 Tim. 3 lays down, but of adequate authority appointing them. Scripture only recognises as presbyters men thus inaugurated. Whatever their qualities, they were only eligible for elders without or before that; but elders scripturally they were not till so chosen. It is well to know, honour, and obey those who have the requisite traits, as we hear enjoined in 1 Cor. 16, 1 Thess. 5, and elsewhere. But they were not called elders, nor ought to be so, until duly established as such. Clearly therefore to dispense with this is not subjection to scripture. The brethren of the new movement offend against God's word in pretending to "elders" in their midst without the essential title of a valid appointing authority.

But now the important question arises: How were the elders appointed? Turn to Acts 14: "And when they (the apostles) had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed" (ver. 23). There you have the distinct statement as to how the elders were appointed. We have no intimation from Scripture that the Church was competent to choose them; they might choose their deacons (see Acts 6:3), but as to elders, it was an apostle, or an apostolic delegate who alone could select them, so far as Scripture teaches, and they only ordained them. The Assembly did not then choose the elders — that seems manifest.

The choosing of presidents or pastors by the church is also altogether without warrant in the New Testament. The election of a president is a mere act of man, entirely unauthorised. It is a mere intervention of our wilfulness in the concerns of God's church, an action pregnant with evil consequences. The choosing of pastors is an encroachment on the authority of the Holy Ghost, who distributes gifts according to His will. Alas! for him who does not profit by the gift which God grants to another. Where elders were appointed, it was either by the apostles or else by those sent by the apostles to the churches. If the church is in ruins, God is sufficient even for that state of ruin; God will lead on and guide His children, if they walk in humility and obedience, without setting about a work that God has not called them to.

And, if we look to the means, we see how God acts. He has given directions, which, if observed, will maintain order. Has He not said — "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder; yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility" (1 Peter 5:5)? Here we have a rule widely removed from democratic licence on the one hand, and with no reference to office on the other. It prescribes that godly subjection to age and gravity which nature enjoins and the Word of God ever inculcates. Where the mind was simple, there was a spiritual discernment of those who were fitted to exercise authority, quite apart from any appointment to office. We see this in the exhortation of the apostle to the Thessalonians — "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you" (1 Thess. 5:12). Here nothing is said about office, and as this epistle was written very shortly after Paul's brief sojourn among them, he must have deviated from his usual practice if he had appointed officers. Besides, how could they be exhorted to know them, if they had an official character? The natural meaning of the passage is, that there were certain persons qualified to bear rule and guide the assembly, and that there ought to be in the assembly godly discernment enough to recognise such persons, and godly subjection enough to own their authority. This, then, is the Lord's provision now; and if there is a subject heart and simple faith, its sufficiency will be readily recognised; while, if we look at the sad history of the Church since the days of the apostles, we shall feel unfeigned thankfulness that the Lord has not perpetuated office in a ruined assembly, thus lending the sanction of Divine appointment to all the abominations and atrocities which have left their bloody mark on almost every page in the annals of ecclesiastical rule.

The business of the elders was to rule or take the lead among the saints. They were responsible to see to godly order in public and private; and hence, as we saw in chapter 3, qualities were looked for which would give them moral weight, not only in cheering the weak and timid and tried, but in repressing the forward, and rebuking the disorderly. They are therefore quite distinct from the gifts, of which we hear so much in Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4, and elsewhere. Hence we must distinguish, as scripture does, a pastor from an elder. For as the latter is never enumerated among the fruits of Christ's ascension, the former is incontrovertibly treated as a gift of His love, no less than apostles, prophets, and evangelists, for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12).

The two might be united, doubtless, in the same person. But eldership was a local charge, which needed the authority of an apostle, or an adequate person acting definitely under apostolic commission, to make the desired choice of fitting men. This is clearly shown in Acts 14:23; where, we are told, that Paul and Barnabas chose or appointed elders for the disciples in each assembly. That the disciples chose elders, whom the apostles ordained, is a fiction, perhaps due to the wholly different case in Acts 6 of "the seven," whom the saints at large did select and the apostles appointed over the business of the "tables". The reason of this procedure seems plain. The saints, as they contributed of their goods, were left most wisely to look out from among themselves brethren so endowed as to inspire the confidence of all. But the "gifts" are given by Christ, not by the church, and therefore in this case He alone chooses; and, as authority also is from Him Who invested the apostles with power to act for Him on earth, we see them, directly or indirectly, choosing elders accordingly. Hence Titus was sent for the purpose of appointing elders in every city of Crete (Titus 1:5). Never was the assembly told in scripture to choose such. Directions also are here given to Timothy only, not to the assembly in Ephesus. Authority and power are from above.

Pastorship, to come still closer, is a gift (Eph. 4:11), eldership is a charge; but the gift of feeding the flock of God, so far from being incompatible with the office of an elder or bishop, was evidently one of the most important qualifications sought in those who desired that good work. Thus Paul (Acts 20:28) exhorts the Ephesian elders to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (bishops, ἐπισκόπους), to feed the church of God which He had purchased with His own blood. "Feed the flock of God," said another apostle, "which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (ἐπισκοποῦντες) not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over their allotments,* but being ensamples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3).