---

This, the earliest, stands remarkably distinguished from the episcopal elections of after ages. Every one acquainted with history knows that the election of a bishop was one of the fiercest questions which shook the Church of Christ. Appointment by the people. Presbyters. Various customs. Anecdote of of Milan. Appointment by the Emperor or Bishop of Rome. Quarrel of ages between the Emperor and the Pope. Consider —

I. THE OBJECT OF THE ELECTION. To elect a bishop of the universal Church. It might be that in process of time the apostle should be appointed to a particular city — as St. James was to Jerusalem. But his duty was owed to the Church in general, and not to that particular city; and if he had allowed local interests to stand before the interests of the whole, he would have neglected the duty of his high office, and if those who appointed him considered the interest of Jerusalem instead of the Church universal, they would have failed in their duty. In the third century stated this principle: "The Episcopate, one and indivisible, held in its entirety by each bishop, every part standing for the whole." The political application is plain. Each legislator legislates for the country, not for a county or town. Each elector holds his franchise as a sacred trust, to be exercised not for his town, or faction, or himself, or his friends, but for the general weal of the people of England. We are not to be biassed by asking what charity does a candidate support, nor by his view of some local question, nor by his support of Tractarian or Evangelical societies. We are, in our high responsibility, selecting, not a president for a religious society, nor a patron of a town, nor a subscriber to an hospital, but a legislator for England.

II. THE MODE OF THE ELECTION. It was partly human, partly Divine. The human element is plain enough in that it was popular. The Divine element lay in this that it was overruled by God. The selected one might be the chosen of the people, yet not the chosen of God. Hence they prayed, "Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men," etc. The common notion is, vox populi vox — i.e., a law is right because it is a people's will. We have not quite gone to this length in England. On the Continent it has long been prevalent. Possibly it is the expression of that Antichrist "who showeth himself that he is God"; self-will setting itself up paramount to the will of God. The vox populi is sometimes vox, sometimes not. It was so when the people rescued Jonathan from his father's unjust sentence: and when, after the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal, they cried, "The Lord He is God." But not when, in Moses' absence, they required Aaron to make them a golden calf for a god. Or when they shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" or "Crucify Him!" Politicians eagerly debate the question, how best to secure a fair representation of the people's voice — a question not to be put aside. But the Christian sets a question deeper far than this — how the popular will shall truly represent the will of God. And we shall attain this, not by nicely balancing interest against interest, much less by manoeuvring to defeat the opposite cause; but by each doing all he can to rouse himself and others to a high sense of responsibility. It is a noble thought, that of every elector going to vote, as these men did, for the Church, for the people, for God, and for the right, earnestly anxious that he and others should do right. Else this was an appeal to chance and not to God; and every election, by ballot or by suffrage, is else an appeal to chance.

III. THE SPIRIT.

1. A religious spirit. "They prayed," etc. Now, we shall be met here by an objection. This was a religious work — the selection of an apostle; but the choice of a representative is only a secular one. But it is not the occupation, but the spirit which makes the difference. The election of a bishop may be most secular; the election of a representative may be religious. St. Paul taught that nothing is profane. Sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, St. Peter learned that nothing is common or unclean. Many relics remain to us from our religious forefathers indicative of this truth. Grace before meals. Dei gratia on coins of the realm; "In the name of God," at the commencement of wills; oaths in court of justice — all proclaim that the simplest acts of our domestic and political life are sacred or profane according to the spirit in which they are performed; not in the question whether they are done for the State or the Church, but whether with God or without God. Observe: It is not the preluding such an election with public prayer that would make it a religious act. It is religious so far as each man discharges his part as a duty and solemn responsibility. If looked on in this spirit would the debauchery, which is fostered by rich men of all parties among the poor for their own purposes, be possible? Would they, for the sake of one vote, or a hundred votes, brutalise their fellow creatures?

2. It was done conscientiously. Each Christian found himself in possession of a new right — that of giving a vote or casting a lot. Like all rights, it was a duty. He had not a right to do what he liked, only to do right. And if any one had swayed him to support the cause of Barsabas or that of Matthias on any motives except this one — "You ought" — he had so far injured his conscience. The worst of crimes is to injure a human conscience. Now bribery is a sin. Not because a particular law has been made against it, but because it lowers the sense of personal responsibility. And whether you do directly by giving, indirectly by withdrawing, assistance, or patronage — you sin against Christ.

3. It was not done from personal interest. If the supporters of the two candidates had been influenced by such considerations as bloodrelationship, or the chance of favour and promotion, a high function would have been degraded. In secular matters, however, we do not judge so. A man generally decides according to his professional or his personal interests. You know almost to a certainty beforehand which way a man will vote, if you know his profession. Partly no doubt, this is involuntarily — the result of those prejudices which attach to us all from association. But it is partly voluntary. We know that we are thinking not of the general good, but of our own interests. And thus a farmer would think himself justified in looking at a question simply as it affected his class, and a noble as it affected his caste, and a working man as it bore upon the working classes. Brethren, we are Christians. Something of a principle higher than this ought to be ours. What is the law of the Cross of Christ? The sacrifice of the One for the whole, the cheerful surrender of the few for the many. Else, what do we more than others? These are fine words — patriotism, public principle, purity. Be sure these words are but sentimental expressions, except as they spring out of the Cross of Christ.

(F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

---

---

KJV: And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

WEB: They put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.