What does the Bible say about the form of church government?

The duty of elders is that of oversight. In Acts 20 the apostle gives them this name (in our language, bishop; in Greek, episkopos). We find this title again in the Epistle to the Philippians. In Acts 20:28, 31, we see in what their duty consisted - to nourish with sound doctrine, to be watchful against false teachers, and attentive to everything. The passage in 1 Peter 5:1-3 speaks the same thing.

12 The duty of deacons is also, as for the elders, expressed in their name. The Greek word diakonos signifies servant. They served the assembly as its servants; there were also sisters (as Phoebe) with the same title. If we examine Acts 6, the seven who cared for the poor widows as deacons had this service specially allotted to them for their portion.

These were the offices then in the various assemblies, which the apostles, and Paul in particular, established when all was yet in order. There were in each assembly several elders.

Now a 'bishop'2 is an overseer, and a 'deacon'3 is a minister who serves. No question can be justly raised as to either of these meanings, both of which are exemplified originally and supremely in the living Truth Himself. For the Lord is the Bishop also, or Overseer, of the flock which, as the true Shepherd, He has purchased for Himself, and which He both guards and guides through the effectual ministry of the Spirit in the constancy and patient grace of His unalterable love. In a secondary sense, all elders in God's Church or assembly in any locality are also ipso facto overseers or bishops;4 the first description indicating their needful maturity of age, the latter declaring their official charge. But we may not infer from this that all aged disciples are 'elders' also. For the latter name is a title as well as a description, and is attached by the Spirit to those Christian men of age only in whom a fitness for oversight is also found.

Here also we shall see how appropriately the preface falls in with the object of the Holy Ghost throughout: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Now this is the only church where we have the "bishops and deacons" addressed as well as the saints. The reason may have been that it was, more or less, a transition state. We have three things in the Church of the New Testament. The first is — apostles, acting in the full power of their gift and office. Then, besides deacons, bishops or elders (for these two mean the same officials, only called by a different name), apostolically appointed to the charge which the Lord had given them; the bishops having to do with that which is internal, the deacons with that which is external, but both of them local offices, while the Apostle had his authority from the Lord everywhere. The Holy Ghost shows us thus the full regimen in the churches; that is to say, the apostles acting in their high place, who were called to establish the foundations of the Church practically, and to govern it upon a large scale throughout the whole breadth of the Church of God upon earth; and beside them, these local guides, the bishops and deacons.

Correctly speaking, the government is an absolute monarchy, the Holy Ghost in the churches being sovereign.* The idea, therefore, common among many, that the principle is that of a democracy, is totally wrong; although, of course, as a number of those who (not being prepared by the Spirit, either for helps or governments) exercise no office in the congregation, far exceeds that of those so gifted; and as all are supposed to have the apprehension of the Spirit's mind (see 1 Cor. 5 and 1 Cor. 10: 15, "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say," 1 John 4: 6, etc). the responsibility rests mainly with the many, even though God† inform their judgments through the few. The only officers, found in the churches, are elders and deacons; for the apostles were for the building, and not continued dwelling, in these congregations.‡ In each of these two offices, then, we shall find the same principle of mutual dependence preserved by the appointment of a plurality of the officers.

A. A meeting of those who addict themselves to the ministry of the saints may rightly consult and decide on matters which concern the Lord's work and the saints, save in such cases as reception or excision, where according to scripture the assembly as such is called to act. But I know nothing of a meeting even of elders which could be said to represent the assembly. There is individual action, joint action, and that of the assembly: each true, and important, and sanctioned of the Lord; but one does not represent another. The assembly is itself and supposes the place of all, brothers and sisters, with the Spirit freely acting in their midst to maintain the glory and will of the Lord. But a meeting of chief men among the brethren is of great value, substantially of the elderhood in principle if not so now in name; for it is mischievous to be ever occupying the assembly with questions, the natural result of men who wish to set the assembly against ministry, and so naturally use it for their own self-importance. But no individuals, however gifted, can act for the assembly, though they may be helpful to the assembly in enabling them to judge before the Lord, and they may morally represent the assembly to the Lord's eye for praise or blame. In general, too, cases of evil, which are rightly brought before all, are so plain as to leave no hesitation. Still there are seasons when the assembly might demand more time or evidence before the extreme act of putting away; nor ought the assembly to be hurried into hasty measures, by individuals, whose sole remedy for all evil (the strongest point of their own lack of wisdom and power) is exclusion. In every instance the assembly should weigh seriously and calmly, but in the sense of its own responsibility to the Lord, not at all as the mere executive of elders or chief men, who are liable to infirmity of various kinds; it has the presence of the Lord to count on in a way quite peculiar and is subject to Him alone. The question of acting forthwith or not depends entirely on the nature of the case; it should never degenerate into a venture but be the fruit of conscientious judgment in liberty before God. To act simply on the judgment of a supposed representative would be presbyterian, not as God's church; to act only for itself would be congregational. It is God's church; and in the present ruin the Lord graciously attaches the same validity even to "two or three" gathered to His name. If representation comes in rightly, it is here; in a certain sense the local assembly represents the church everywhere; and the church everywhere, in all ordinary cases, acts on the judgment of the local assembly. It is the presence of the Lord in their midst which gives it such weight. Church action otherwise is human.

While we do not have apostles today, nor a "Jerusalem" as in Acts 15, yet an important principle is therein laid down for us to act upon at all times. That is, those questions which affect the Church as a whole should be considered in conference among representative brethren from the Assemblies who seek the Lord's guidance together in prayer and consultation. Assemblies or individuals have no right to act independently in such matters which affect the whole Church. We must use "diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace," using "all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love." "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov. 11:14).*

We need to remember, however, that authority to act for the Lord according to His Word is given to the local assembly gathered unto His Name. While it is necessary for brethren to counsel together in conference, they are not given authority as such to make decisions binding upon all. This is the prerogative of a local assembly acting in the Name of the Lord in harmony with His Word

Churches thus constituted and regulated rapidly increased throughout the empire. In the management of their internal affairs every church was essentially distinct from every other, though walking in spiritual fellowship with all others, and considered as part of the one church of God. But, as the number of believers increased, and churches were extended, diversities in doctrine and discipline sprang up, which could not always be settled in the individual assemblies. This gave rise to councils, or synods. These were composed chiefly of those who took part in the ministry. But when the deputies of the churches were thus assembled, it was soon discovered that the control of a president was required. Unless the sovereign action of the Holy Spirit in the church be owned and submitted to, there must be anarchy without a president. The bishop of the capital of the province was usually appointed to preside, under the lofty title of the Metropolitan. On his return home it was hard to lay aside these occasional honours, so he very soon claimed the personal and permanent dignity of the Metropolitan.

"Fathers and Brethren - Our church polity is apostolical. It 'is founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto,' as our Confession so well states the matter. It is framed upon the practice of the apostolic age, while yet inspired men were in the Church to give authority to its doctrines, and accuracy to its history. From these halcyon days of Christianity our church derives its constitution. There we get the principles that regulate all our polity. We admit, as our Confession does, 'that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.' But we also hold 'That the scriptural proof of any arrangement or practice having existed in the apostolic churches, ordinarily and primâ facie imposes an obligation on all churches to adopt it - an obligation that is imperative and unlimited in regard to all those things which obviously enter into the substance of the government and worship of the Church, and the mode in which they are administered.' In the scriptures, then, we read that a church comprehended a society of the people of God, either in a single congregation, as in the house of Nymphas (Col. 4:15), or in a city, as in Jerusalem (Acts 2:22), where there were at least eight thousand persons; or the whole community of a nation, as in Acts 7:38, where St. Stephen speaks of 'the church in the wilderness,' or all the Christians in the world, as where the apostle says (1 Cor. 12:28), 'God hath set some in the church'; or, finally, all the people of God in heaven and on earth, as in Ephesians 5:25: 'Christ also loved the church.' The word has only one meaning everywhere, but capable of any extension. In the scripture we read that the office-bearers of the Church were elected by the people. Whether it was the election of an apostle to fill the vacant bishopric of Judas (Acts 1:23), or of deacons to look after the temporal affairs of the early Church (Acts 6), it was a popular choice. There we read what will not now be controverted by any scholar, that bishops and presbyters or elders were identical. In the apostolic Church, and in the many references of the inspired epistles to this office, there was no difference between bishop and presbyter. The names expressed the same office, and are used interchangeably by the sacred writers. In the New Testament we read that there was a plurality of bishops or elders in every church, in Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, as well as in the larger congregations of the greater cities. There, too, we read that ordination to the office of the ministry was an act of the presbytery, of a plurality of elders. This was preferred by the apostles themselves when they were all together in Jerusalem (Acts 6). Thus SS. Paul and Barnabas were ordained at Antioch (Acts 13:3). Thus Timothy was ordained (1 Tim. 1:14). And after this model it is most scriptural to set apart men to sacred office. There we learn that there was a right of appeal allowed to members of the church, or single congregations, from a decision among themselves to an assembly of apostles and elders, as the office-bearers of the Church. Apostolic dicta pronounced by inspired lips did not settle the controversies of the early Church. The appeal from Antioch was discussed in an assembly convened for the purpose, and in which the apostles were members. The decision was authoritative and final. The decrees of the assembly at Jerusalem were binding upon the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and were received with submission. The government of the Church was representative, and final decisions were given by the assembly of bishops or elders. There, too, we read that supreme power was lodged nowhere else, not in an apostle, or a prince of apostles, a president of assembly, still less in an earthly potentate, but that the Lord Jesus Christ was the sole King and Head of the Church. His revealed will was the only standard, and His officers the only court of appeal in all matters ecclesiastical. There was a gradation of judicatories; but the Church was possessed of an inherent right to settle all spiritual causes. There, too, we read that there were elders who ruled, as distinct from those who also laboured in word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17). They all had equal status, but not equal functions.

In the book of Acts we have had necessarily before us that asserted council which we have no need to deny having been such, but with a very different result from that which is sought to be deduced from it. The appeal is certainly made there, on the part of the Gentiles, to Jerusalem; and not only so, but the apostle Paul speaks of going up by revelation there (Gal. 2) so that it was of God that there should be this appeal: but for what purpose? In order that at Jerusalem itself the hold of Jerusalem upon the people of God might be broken, and the Church set free! Nothing could possibly be so effectual as to make Jerusalem itself set aside what was claimed to be her own jurisdiction; and thus it is that in the letter which goes out from thence at this time, it is put as what seemed good "to the Holy Spirit and to us;" not to the Holy Spirit in us or by us, but the Holy Spirit having, as Peter argues, in fact already settled the matter by the bringing in of Cornelius and others with him; Jerusalem had nothing further to do than to profess its subjection to what the Spirit had already done. This is the plain matter of fact, as the whole history demonstrates, and it settles definitely the question of the Spirit of God making known His mind through councils of the Church — the mischief which men inexcusably have made out of this. The metropolitan character of Ephesus, as asserted by tradition, grows naturally out of its actual political place at that time; and when politics began to influence the Church, it became perfectly natural that Ephesus should have the spiritual place answering to its political one. Scripture itself knows nothing of all this. There is in it the Church at large, and the churches (or assemblies); but the Church at large consists, not of churches, but of individuals. The body of Christ has members, and nothing else. Yet there are churches, assemblies, which in each place, in the original condition of things, was but the one assembly in that place — everywhere the assembly of God represented in those who might be gathered together there. The local assembly represented in this way, of necessity, the assembly as a whole, but it was no distinct body. The only body was the body of Christ. There cannot be bodies of Christ, but only the body. The local assembly in this way owed all that was distinctive in it to mere locality. The assembly as a whole, scattered as it is over the world, cannot, therefore, assemble; the actual assembly must of necessity be local. But it was thus at the same time no separate body, and could not be so without an independence being asserted by this, which in Scripture at least is never thought of.

Was there nothing else than that? Was there no ordained class at all then? That is another thing. There were, without doubt, in the primitive Church two classes of officials, regularly appointed, — ordained, if you like. The deacons were those who, having charge of the fund for the poor and other purposes, were chosen by the saints first for this place of trust in their behalf, and then appointed authoritatively by apostles mediately or immediately. Elders were a second class, — elderly men, as the word imports, who were appointed in the local assemblies as "bishops" or "overseers," to take cognizance of their state. That the elders were the same as bishops may be seen in Paul's words to the elders of Ephesus, where he exhorts them to "take heed to … all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." There they have translated the word, "bishops," but in Titus they have left it — "that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless … for a bishop must be blameless" (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5, 7).

Their work was to "oversee," and although for that purpose their being "apt to teach" was a much needed qualification, in view of errors already rife, yet no one could suppose that teaching was confined to those who were "elders," "husbands of one wife, having their children in subjection with all gravity." This was a needed test for one who was to be a bishop; "for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:1-7).