The first of these ways was repeated in the foundation of the evan- gelical church. Christ himself was called unto his office by the Father, through the unction of the Spirit, Isa. Ixi. 1-3, Heb. v. 5; and he himself called the apostles and evangelists, in whom that call ceased. The second, ordinary way, by the privilege of natural genera- tion of the stock of the priests, was utterly abolished. The third way only remained for the ordinary continuation of the church, — namely, by the choice and election of the church itself, with solemn separa- tion and dedication by officers extraordinary or ordinary.
The first instance of the choice of a church-officer had a mixture in it of the first and last ways, in the case of Matthias. As he was able to be a church-officer, he had the choice and consent of the church ; as he was to be an apostle or an extraordinary officer, there was an immediate divine disposition of him into his office ; — the latter, to give him apostolical authority ; the former, to make him a prece- dent of the future actings of the church in the call of their officers.
I say, this being the first example and pattern of the calling of any person unto office in the Christian church-state, wherein there was an interposition of the ordinary actings of men, is established as a rule and precedent, not to be changed, altered, or departed from, in any age of the church whatever. It is so as unto what was of com- mon right and equity, which belonged unto the whole church. And
THE OFFICEKS OF THE CHURCH. 57
I cannot but wonder how men durst ever reject and disannul this divine example and rule. It Avill not avail them to say that it is only a matter of fact, and not a precept or institution, that is re- corded; for, — 1. It is a. fact left on record in the holy Scripture for our instruction and direction. 2. It is an example of the apos- tles and the whole church proposed unto us; which, in all things not otherwise determined, hath the force of an institution. 3. If , there were no more in it but this, that we have a matter of common right determined and applied by the wisdom of the apostles and the entire church of believers at that time in the world, it were an. impiety to depart from it, unless in case of the utmost necessity.
Whereas what is here recorded was in the call of an apostle, it strengthens the argument which hence we plead; for if in the ex- traordinary call of an apostle it was the mind of Christ that the fraternity or multitude should have the liberty of their suffrage, how much more is it certainly his mind, that in the ordinary call of their own peculiar ofScers, iu whom, under him, the concernment is their own only, this right should be continued unto them !
The order of the proceeding of the church herein is distinctly declared; for, — 1. The number of the church at that time, — that is, of the men, — was about an hundred and twenty, Acts i. 15. 2. They were assembled all together in one place, so as that Peter stood up in the midst of them, verse 15. 3. Peter, in the name of the rest of the apostles, declares unto them the necessity of choosing one to be substituted in the room of Judas, verses 16-22. 4. He limits the choice of him unto the especial qualification of being a meet witne.ss of the resurrection of Christ, or unto those who constantly ac- companied him with themselves from the baptism of John ; that is, from his being baptized by him, whereon he began his public minis- try. 5. Among these they were left at their liberty to nominate any two, who were to be left unto the lot for a determination whether of them God designed imto the office. 6. Hereon the whole mul- titude Urrtdav h\)o, " appointed two;" that is, the civdpsg ddsX<poi, the " men and brethren," unto whom Peter spoke, verse 16, did so. 7. The same persons, to promote the work, " prayed and gave forth their lots," verses 24—26. 8. SuyxarE-vJ^jp/V^jj Mardi'ag, — Matthias was, by the common suffrage of the whole church, reckoned unto the number of the apostles.
I say not that these things were done by the disciples in distinction from Peter and the rest of the apostles, but in conjunction with them. Peter did nothing without them, nor did they any thing without him.
The exceptions of Bellarmine and others against this testimony^ that it was a grant and a condescension in Peter, and not a declara- tion of the right of the church, that it was an extraordinary case^ that the determination of the whole was by lot, are of no validity.
58 TRUE NATURE OF A GOSPEL CHURCH.
The pretended concession of Peter is a figment ; the case was so ex- traordinary as to inchide in it all ordinary cases, for the substance of them ; and although the ultimate determination of the individual person (which was necessary unto his apostleship) was immediately divine, by lot, yet here is all granted unto the people, in their choos- ing and appointing two, in their praying, in their casting lots, in their voluntary approbatory suffrage, that is desired.