selves to the authority of these confederacies. The church in Africa, for example, and some of the Eastern churches, although they adopted the custom of holding councils, and were in correspondence with these churches, declined entering into any grand Christian confederation with them; and continued for some time inflexibly tenacious of their own just liberty and independence. This their example is an effectual refutation of those who pretend that these councils were divinely appointed and had, jure divino, authority over the churches. Who can suppose that these churches would have asserted their independence so sternly, against an institution appointed by our Lord or his apostles ?11 The early independence of the churches, then, is conceded even by Episcopalians themselves. It has both the sanction of apostolic precedent, and the concurring authority of ecclesiastical writers, ancient and modern. This of itself is a point strongly illustrative of the religious freedom which was the basis of their original polity. This independence of particular churches is the great central principle, the original element, of their popular constitution and government. It vests the authority and power of each church in its own members collectively. It guards their rights. It guarantees to them the elective franchise, and ensures to them the enjoyment of religious liberty, under a government administered by the voice of the majority, or delegated at pleasure to their representatives. The constitution of the churches and their mutual relations, may not have been precisely Congregational or Presbyterian, but they involved the principles of the religious freedom and the popular rights which both are designed to protect. 11 Even the council of Nice, in treating of the authority of the metropolitan bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, rests the dignity and authority of these prelates, not on any divine right, but solely on ancient usage. Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατεῖτο, etc., ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν τῇ Ρώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ σύνηθες ἐστὶν, Can. 6. Comp. Du Pin, Antiq Eccl. Disciplina. Diss. 1. § 7. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. II. § 23, Note. CHAPTER IV. ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. THE right of suffrage was, from the beginning, enjoyed in the Christian church. The first public act of this body was a formal recognition and a legitimate exercise of this right. First in importance among their popular rights, they maintained it with greater constancy than any other against the usurpations of prelatical power, and resigned it last of all into the hands of their spiritual oppressors. The subject of the following chapter leads us to consider, I. The evidence that the right of suffrage was enjoyed by the primitive church. II. The time and means of the extinction of this right. I. The members of the primitive church enjoyed the right of electing, by a popular vote, their own officers and teachers. The evidence in support of this position is derived from the writings of the apostles and of the early fathers. In the former we have on record instances of the election of an apostle, and of deacons, delegates and presbyters of the church, each by a popular vote of that body. From the latter, we learn that the church continued for several centuries subsequent to the age of the apostles, in the enjoyment of the elective franchise. 1. The scriptural argument, from the writings of the apostles. (a) The election of an apostle. The first public act of the church after our Lord's ascension, was the choice of a substitute in the place of the apostle Judas. This election was made, not by the apostles themselves, but by the joint action of the whole body of believers. If, in any instance, the apostles had the right, by their own independent authority, to invest another with the ministerial office, we might expect them to exercise that prerogative in supplying this vacancy in their own body. That right, however, they virtually disclaimed, by submitting the election to the arbitration of the assembled body of believers. If they exercised any leading influence in the election, it was in nominating the two candidates for office, Joseph and Matthias, Acts 1: 23. Nothing, however, appears from the context to decide whether even the nomination proceeded from them, or from the church collectively. But however that may be, the election was the act of the assembly; and was made, either by casting lots, or by an elective vote. Mosheim understands the phrase, ἔδωκεν κλήρους αὐτῶν, to express the casting of a popular vote by the Christians. To express the casting of lots, according to this author, the verb should have been ßalov, as in Matth. 27: 35. Luke 23: 34. John 19: 24. Mark 15: 24. Comp. Septuagint, Ps. 22: 19. Joel 3: 3. Nah. 3: 10; which also accords with the usage of Homer in similar cases.1 But the phrase, ἔδωκεν κλήρους, according to this author, expresses the casting of a popular vote; the term, xλngovs, being used in the sense of yñgos, a suffrage, or vote, so that what the evangelist meant to say was simply this: "and those who were present gave their votes."2 The precise mode of determining the election, perhaps, cannot be fully settled. Nor are the persons who gave 1 Iliad, 23. 352. Odyss. 14 209. 2 De Rebus Christ., Saec. 1. § 14. Note. 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 chose, 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 1: 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 everything here with the common consent; nothing, by his own will and authority. He left the judgment to the multitude, to secure the respect 3 Röhr, Kritischen Predigerbibliothek. Bd. 13. Heft. 6. 4 D. Grossmann, Ueber eine Reformation der protestantischen Kirchenverfassung in Königreiche Sachsen. Leipsig, 1833, S. 47. 5 Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. c. 1. Note. • Greiling, Apostol. Kirchengemeine, S. 15. 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 have been 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 choosing another apostle in the place of the apostate Judas, and urges them to proceed to the election. 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; 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. Here again the proposition originated with the apostles. It was received with approbation by the whole multitude, who immediately proceeded to make the election by a 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 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 observes, "that there should be a more evident convincing instance and example 7 Hom. ad locum, Vol. IX. p. 25. Comp. Cyprian, Ep. 68. Rothe, Anfänge der Christ. Kirch. S. 149. |