Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

The precise mode of determining the election, perhaps, can never be fully settled. Nor are the persons who gave the vote clearly designated, but they appear to have been the whole body of believers then present. When we compare this election with that of the deacons which soon followed, and consider the uniform custom of the disciples to submit to the church the enacting of their own laws, and the exercise of their popular rights, in other respects, we must regard the election before us as the joint act of the brethren there assembled. For this opinion, we have high authority from German writers. “The whole company of believers had a part in supplying the number of the apostles themselves, and the choice was their joint act.” 3 "At the request of the apostles, the church choose, by lot, Matthias for an apostle, in the place of Judas.”4 "Without doubt, those expositors adopt the right view, who suppose that not only the apostles, but all the believers were at that time assembled; for, though in Acts 1: 26, the apostles are primarily intended, yet the disciples collectively form the chief subject, Acts 15, to which all at the beginning of the second chapter necessarily refers."5 This is said with reference to the assembly on the day of Pentecost, but the reasoning shows distinctly the views of the author respecting the persons who composed the assembly at the election. of Matthias. In all decisions and acts, even in the election of the twelfth apostle, the church had a voice."6

Chrysostom's exposition of the passage, confirmed as it is also by Cyprian, may, without doubt, be received as a fair expression of the sentiments and usages of the early church on this subject. "Peter did every thing here with

3 Röhr's Kritischen Predigenbibliothek. Bd. 13, Heft. 6.

4 D. Grossman Ueber eine Reformation der protestantischen Kirchenverfassung in Königreiche Sachoen. Leipsig, 1833, p. 47.

5 Neander, Apost. Kirch., 1, c. 1, Note.

[blocks in formation]

the common consent; nothing by his own will and authority. He left the judgment to the multitude, to secure the greater respect to the elected, and to free himself from every invidious reflection." After quoting the words, they appointed two," he adds, "he did not himself appoint them, it was the act of all."7

The order of the transaction appears to be as follows: Peter stands up in the midst of the disciples, convened in assembly to the number of one hundred and twenty, and explains to them the necessity of their proceeding to the choice of another apostle in the place of the apostate Judas, and urges them to proceed to the election of such. The whole assembly then designate two of their number as candidates for the office, and after prayer for divine direction, all cast lots, and the lot falls upon Matthias; 8 or, according to Mosheim, all cast their votes, and the vote falls upon Matthias. Whatever may have been the mode of the election, it appears to have been a popular vote, and indicates the inherent right of the people to make the election.

(b) The election of the seven deacons, Acts 6:1—6. The proposition originated, again, with the apostles. It was received with approbation by the whole multitude, who immediately proceeded to make the election by an united and public vote. The order of the transaction is very clearly marked. The apostles propose to "the multitude of the disciples" the appointment of the seven. The proposal is favorably received by "the whole multitude," who accordingly proceed to the choice of the proposed number, and set them before the apostles, not to ratify the election, but to induct them into office by the laying on of hands. This election is clearly set forth as the act of the whole

7 Hom. ad locum, T. IX, p. 25. Comp. Cyprian, Ep. 68.

8 Rothe, Anfänge der Christ. Kirch., p. 149.

assembly, and is so universally admitted to have been made. by a popular vote, that it may be passed without further remark. Indeed, "it is impossible," as Owen very justly observes, "that there should be a more evident convincing instance and example of the free choice of ecclesiastical officers by the multitude or fraternity of the church, than is given us herein. Nor was there any ground or reason why this order and process should be observed, why the apostles would not themselves nominate and appoint persons, whom they saw and knew meet for this office to receive it, but that it was the right and liberty of the people, according to the mind of Christ, to choose their own officers, which they would not abridge or infringe."9

(c) The election of delegates of the churches.

These delegates were the fellow-laborers and assistants of the apostle, to accompany him in his travels, to assist in setting in order the churches, and generally to supply his lack of service to all the churches, the care of which came upon him. Such, according to Rothe, was Timothy, whom he commends as his fellow-laborer, Rom. 16: 21. 1 Thess. 3: 2, and associates with himself in salutation to the churches. Phil. 1: 1. 1 Thess. 1: 1. 2 Thess. 1: 1., &c. Such was Titus, 2 Cor. 8: 23. Silvanus, 1 Thess. 1: 1. 2 Thess. 1: 1. Mark, Coloss. 4: 10. 1 Pet. 5: 13. Epaphras, Coloss. 1: 7, &c.10

Clemens, Phil. 4: 3. But whatever may have been the specific duties of this office, the appointment to it was made by a vote of the church. One such assistant Paul greatly commends, who was appointed by the church, χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, 2 Cor. 8: 19, as his travelling companion. To this and the election of the seven deacons, Neander refers, as evidence of the manner in which this popular right was exercised in the churches. "Inasmuch as the apostles submitted the appointment of the deacons to the vote of the 9 Gospel Church, Chap. IV. 10 Anfänge, I, pp. 305-307.

church, and that of the delegates who should accompany them in the name of the churches, we may infer that a similar course was pursued also in the appointment of other officers of the church." 11

Rothe appeals to the same example, as a clear instance of a popular election, and adds, that it harmonizes with the authority of Clement of Rome, who states explicitly, that where the apostles had established churches they appointed bishops and deacons, "with the approbation of the whole church." 12

(d) The election of presbyters.

This is a fair conclusion from the examples that have already been given. If the apostles submitted to the church the election of one of their number as an extraordinary and temporary minister, much more may they be supposed to have submitted to the same body the election of their ordinary pastors and teachers, the presbyters. Or, if there be any doubt as to the choice of Matthias by the church, there can be none of the election of the deacons and delegates by a popular vote. In this conclusion, we are sustained by the authority of Neander,13 Rothe,14 and Mosheim. "That the presbyters of the primitive church of Jerusalem were elected by the suffrages of the people, cannot, I think, well be doubted by any one who shall have duly considered the prudence and moderation discovered by the apostles, in filling up the vacancy in their own number, and in appointing curators or guardians for the poor."15 After having proceeded to invest the churches. with the right of electing their own officers, can the apostles be supposed to invade this sacred right, by refusing to them the election of their own pastors and teachers?

These several instances of election chiefly relate to the church at Jerusalem. But wherever churches were planted 11 Allgemein. Gesch., 1, p. 290. 12 Anfänge, I, p. 151. 13, 14 Cited above. 15 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec., I, § 39.

by the apostles, they were, without doubt, organized after the original plan of that at Jerusalem; so that the above is a fair exhibition of the mode of appointment which generally prevailed in the churches. "The new churches," says Gieseler, "every where formed themselves on the model of the mother church at Jerusalem."16 So also, Mosheim: "Since all these churches were constituted and formed after the model of that which was planted at Jerusalem, a review of the constitution and regulations of this one church alone will enable us to form a tolerably accurate conception of the form and discipline of all these primitive Christian assemblies." 17

In the Gentile churches the popular principle is more strongly marked than in the Jewish churches, but the organization of all appears, at first, to have been essentially the same. At a later period, all may have been more or less modified by peculiar circumstances, and a greater difference may necessarily appear in the government of different churches.

The conclusion therefore is, that the apostolical churches, generally, exercised the right of universal suffrage.

-pre

On the same principle, Paul and Barnabas may be sumed to have proceeded, when, in their missionary tour, they appointed presbyters in the churches where they visited, Acts 14: 23. The question here turns wholly upon the interpretation of the term, zeigotorhσartes, "when they had ordained," or, as in the margin, "when with lifting up of hands they had chosen them."

If, according to the marginal reading, we understand, with our interpreters, the declaration to be, that the apostles made choice of these disciples, even this supposition does not, necessarily, exclude the members of the church themselves from participating in the election. It would imply rather, that they proceeded in the usual way, by calling the

16 Cunningham's Trans., I, p. 56. 17 De Rebus Christ. Saec., I, § 87.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »