A17642:95
The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated…The commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated…
The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated out of Latin into English for the great profit of our country-men, by Christopher Fetherstone student in divinityThe commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated out of Latine into English for the great profite of our countrie-men, by Christopher Fetherstone student in diuinitie
Londini: printed by Thomas Dawson, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
23 They were to choose one only into the room of Judas: they present two. Here may a question be asked, Why they were not contented with one only? Was it because they were so like, that they could not discern whether was more fit? This truly had been no sufficient reason why they should suffer it to be decided by lots. And also it seemeth that Joseph was of greater estimation otherwise. Or was it because they were diversly affectioned? But this seemeth scarce probable, neither is this to be admitted as true, because of that most excellent testimony which Luke did give a little before of their unity and agreement. Lastly, it had been very absurd for them to have polluted the election of the Apostle with such strife and contention. But for this cause did they use the casting of lots, that it might be known that Matthias was not only chosen by the voices of men, but also that he was made by the determination and judgement of God.
23 They were to choose one only into the roome of Iudas: they present two. Here may a question be asked, Why they were not contented with one onely? Was it because they were so like, that they could not discerne whether was more fit? This truly had bene no sufficient reason why they should suffer it to be decided by lottes. And also it seemeth that Ioseph was of greater estimation otherwise. Or was it because they were diuersly affectioned? But this semeth scarce probable, neither is this to be admitted as true, because of that most excellent testimony which Luke did giue a little before of their vnity and agreement. Lastly, it had beene very absurde for them to haue polluted the election of the Apostle with such strife and contention. But for this cause did they vse the casting of lots, that it might be knowne that Matthias was not onely chosen by the voices of men, but also that he was made by the determination and iudgement of God.
For there was this difference between the Apostles and the pastors: that the Pastors were chosen simply by the Church, the Apostles were called of God. In which respect Paul in the preface of his epistle to the Galatians,1