Both parts of this number are recommended to the serious consideration of what are called lay-preachers, and of such as favor that scheme. And let all intruders upon the office of the holy ministry, with their deluded votaries, beware lest it should be said to them, Who hath required this at your hands?
NO. IV.
Quest. Have not the people a divine right to choose their own pastors and other church officers?
Ans. In those divinely qualified for the ministry, there are diversities of gifts, though but one spirit. As the same food, though abundantly wholesome and nourishing, is not equally suited to the taste, appetite, and constitutions of different persons and nations; so the same gifts in a candidate for the gospel ministry are not equally adapted to every person and place. To secure edification there must therefore be a choice of the gifts most suitable. And who fitter to make it than those who are to enjoy the use thereof, if their senses be exercised to discern good and evil? Can any man pretend to know better what gifts suit the case of my soul than I do myself?
Those ignorant of the fundamental truths of Christianity; those scandalous, profane deniers of the divine original of the Old and New Testaments, or of any truth therein plainly revealed; those neglecters of the public, private, and secret worship of God; those given to cursing, swearing, Sabbath profanation, drunkenness, whoredom, or other scandalous courses, are destitute of capacity and right to choose a gospel minister. The ignorant are utterly incapable to judge of either the preacher's matter or method. The openly wicked have their hatred of Christ, and a faithful minister, marked in their forehead; neither are such qualified to be visible members of the Christian Church. To admit them therefore to choose a Christian pastor would be a method, introducing ruin and we; a method equally absurd as for unfreemen to choose the magistrates of a burgh: rather, equally absurd as if ignorant babes, and our enemies the French, should be sustained electors of our members of parliament and privy council.
Whether visible believers, adults, and having a life and conversation becoming the gospel, have a right from God to choose their pastors and other church officers, must now be examined.
All along from the Reformation it has been the avowed principle of Scotch Presbyterians, that they have a divine warrant to choose their own pastors and other ecclesiastic officers. The first book of discipline, published A.D. 1560, declares the lawful calling of the ministry to consist in the election of the people, the examination of the ministry, and administration by both, and that no pastor should be intruded on any particular kirk without their consent. Their second book of discipline declares that the people's liberty of choosing church officers continued till the Church was corrupted by antichrist: that patronage flowed from the Pope's canon law, and is inconsistent with the order prescribed in God's word. From various documents the assembly of 1736 declared it obvious, that from the Reformation it had been the fixed principle of this church that no minister ought to be intruded into any church contrary to the will of the congregation. They seriously recommended a due regard hereunto in planting the vacancies, as judicatories would study the glory of God, the honor of God, and the edification of men. It is the law of heaven, however, the book of the Lord, that here and everywhere we intend to build our faith upon.
That of Matthias is the first instance of an election of an officer in the Christian Church. No doubt, then, it is marked in the sacred history as a pattern for the ages to come. Being an officer extraordinary, his call was in part immediately divine, by the determination of the lot. Being a church officer, he was chosen by the Church as far as consistent with his extraordinary office. The disciples about Jerusalem (120) were gathered together. Peter represented the necessity of filling up Judas's place in the apostolate with one who could be a meet witness of Jesus' doctrines, miracles, death, and resurrection. The one hundred and twenty disciples chose, appointed, or presented to whom they judged proper for that work. The office being extraordinary, and perhaps the votes equal, the decision which of these two was referred to the divine determination of the lot. After prayer for a perfect one, it fell upon Matthias, and he was, by suffrages, or votes, added to the number of the apostles.
Had the next election of a church officer entirely excluded the Christian people, one had been tempted to suspect that Matthias's extraordinary case was never designed for a pattern. Instead hereof, the choice being of an ordinary officer, is entirely deposited in their hands. Never were men better qualified for such an election than the inspired, the spirit-discerning apostles; yet when restrained by laborious attendance to their principal work, the ministry of the word and of prayer, from sufficient leisure to distribute their multiplied alms to their now numerous poor, and directed by the Holy Ghost, they ordered the Christian people to look out, choose seven of their number, men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, who might be ordained to the office of deacons. Judging of the mentioned qualifications, the Christian multitude, entirely of their own accord, chose Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas. These they presented to the apostles, who immediately ordained them by prayer, and imposition of hands, Acts vi. 1-6. Here, by inspired appointment, the people had the whole power of electing their deacons. If they have the power of electing one ordinary officer, why not of all? If in the case of deacons they can judge of the qualifications of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, what hinders them to judge of these and the like of ministers? If Jesus and his apostles argued from the less to the greater, Matt. vi. 30,1 Cor. ix. 10, who can forbid us to argue so? If it be right and equal for the Christian people to choose deacons who take care of their sacred alms, is it not much more right and equal that they have the choice of their pastors, who take the oversight of their souls?