ever controverted it might be, contained in it a proof of the doctrine which it was his object to establish. Unless he had done so, his defence of the doctrine of the Trinity would not have been so complete and satisfactory as it is. And why should the ground occupied by Presbyterians, in the above-mentioned passage, be pronounced "insecure and feeble," simply because commentators are not agreed in the interpretation which they give of certain terms that occur in the passage? If this be a good reason for dismissing the passage in dispute so unceremoniously as Dr W. has done, I know not well how any one doctrine can be satisfactorily established from Scripture, as there are comparatively few passages concerning the meaning of which all commentators are agreed.

But let us examine a little more closely the passage itself, that we may see how far it warrants the summary judgment pronounced upon it by Dr Wardlaw in the above quotation. I would here premise that Dr Wardlaw commits a mistake when he says, "helps and goverments are the two items in the list from which the conclusion is drawn." The two items from which the conclusion is drawn are not "helps and governments," but "teachers" and "governments." The term "helps," whatever be the meaning attached to it, lends no assistance in determining the point at issue between Dr Wardlaw and Presbyterians. It is by attending to the meaning of the two terms "teachers" and governments," that this point is to be determined-at least in so far as it is capable of being settled by an appeal to the passage under review.

As to the meaning of the former of these terms (" teachers ") I appeal to Dr Wardlaw himself. Referring to a kindred passage, namely, Eph. iv. 11, where it is said, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers,” he remarks, "the words

just cited from the epistle to the Ephesians go to prove that the 'pastor and teacher' are joint designations of one office; so that all pastors were teachers, and all teachers pastors.' P. 183. According to Dr Wardlaw, then, pastors and teachers are synonymous terms; they are designations of the same office, and that office is the pastoral one. "All pastors

were teachers, and all teachers were pastors." I cordially agree with him in this. The next point to be determined is, what is the meaning to be affixed to the term " governments." Presbyterians in general hold that this term is descriptive of those who bear rule in the church, and that it is a designation applicable to ruling elders. It is satisfactory to know that Dr Wardlaw is favourably inclined to this Presbyterian interpretation of the term. He thinks it more likely to be true than any other interpretation that is put upon it; only he gives to the designation ruling elders a more enlarged meaning than is usually given to it by Presbyterians. I shall quote his own words:

"I think (says he) this is just as likely to be the true interpretation as any other-perhaps the most likely; understanding ruling elders, however, not in the presbyterian sense of elders whose office was to rule apart from teaching, but of bishops, whose office included both instruction and rule." -P. 201.

Dr Wardlaw, then, agrees with Presbyterians in understanding the term "governments" to be a designation applicable to ruling elders; but he differs from them inasmuch as he regards these elders to have been persons who both taught and ruled, whereas Presbyterians regard them as persons who only ruled. My readers will at once perceive that Dr Wardlaw makes these governments," or ruling elders, to be none other than the "pastors and teacher," "whose office included both instruction and rule." According to

66

this view, how shall we interpret the language of the apostle when he says, "God hath set some in the church, teachers; after that governments." If the meaning which Dr Wardlaw affixes to the term governments be the right one- —if it mean elders who both taught and ruled-then there is no difference between the meaning of this term and that of teachers; for the teachers were all pastors, and of course were elders who both taught and ruled. I ask, again, how shall we interpret, according to this view, the language of the apostle? He affirms that "God hath set some in the church, teachers;" and he adds in the same sentence, "after that (God hath set some in the church) governments." If there be no difference between the teachers and the governments, it is a vain and unmeaning repetition which the apostle makes. He employs a phraseology (with reverence be it spoken) calculated to lead us into mistake-as if he wished us to understand that these two terms were descriptive of two classes of elders-one whose principal business it was to teach, and another whose business it was to rule. We cannot, therefore, admit the interpretation of Dr Wardlaw. We are shut up to the conclusion, that the term governments, being a designation descriptive of the office of ruling elder, is designed by the Spirit of God to point out a class of elders different from that of the teachers, and the peculiar province of each is intimated with sufficient clearness by the distinctive epithets employed; the teachers being employed chiefly in communicating public and private instruction to the flock; and the governments being employed in administering the affairs of the house of God. This conclusion is fairly warranted by the phraseology which the apostle employs. The ground, therefore, which Presbyterians occupy in 1 Cor. xii. 28, is not so "insecure and feeble as my esteemed brother

supposes; and I trust that he will henceforth not think it "beyond measure strange" if we should lay some stress upon it.

The third passage-noted aboveas favourable to the Presbyterian view of the office of ruling elder, is one which Dr Wardlaw subjects to a rigid process of criticism; and by dint of ingenuity he extracts from it a meaning very different from that which ordinary readers would suppose to be contained in it. This passage is 1 Tim. v, 17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

Any person whose mind is unprejudiced, and who has no favourite theory to support, reading this text, and taking the words in their plain and literal sense, would suppose that there is an obvious reference in it to two classes of elders: one class whose principal business it was to rule; and another class, who, besides ruling, laboured in word and doctrine. By force of criticism, however, Dr W. endeavours to show that this verse, so far from proving that there are two classes of elders-one class whose duty it is bear rule in the house of God, and another class whose duty it is both to teach and to rule-proves the very opposite. The result of his criticisms he sums up in the following sentence:-"Taking, I say, all these considerations together, feel myself warranted in affirming that this passage, the only one on which the office of the lay or ruling elder can with any plausibility be said to rest, is not only inconclusive in support of that which it is adduced to prove, but conclusive of the contrary."-P. 217. Conclusive of the contrary! It will be proper to examine the process by which he has arrived at this conclusion. Peradventure, I may succeed in showing that the conclusion is not warranted by the premises.

Dr Wardlaw commences his criti

cisms on this verse by affirming that he has successfully proved, "that elder and bishop are designations of the same office, and that the office of the bishop-the σкOTOS-includes in it the charge of teaching as well as of ruling." That elder and bishop are designations of the same office, is what Presbyterians admit. The New Testament furnishes abundant proof of this position. But that the office of the bishop (or elder) always includes in it the charge of public official teaching as well as of ruling, is what Presbyterians deny. Dr W. has not proved this. That there is a sense in which the charge of teaching is applicable to ruling elders-as well as to ministers-is not denied; and what that sense is, I have endeavoured to show in a former part of these strictures. I showed that there are various ways in which these elders may communicate religious instruction to the flock, without engaging in the public ministrations of the word, -and that it is their duty to avail themselves of every suitable opportunity of communicating such instructions to the people. But Dr W. seems to think, that because elders in general are required to feed the flock, to admonish, and to act the part of stewards, therefore they are required to engage in the public preaching of the gospel, and to perform all the other duties connected with the ministerial office. It is here where his

proof fails. What he says he has proved in reference to this point, is a non sequitur. There are various ways of admonishing and feeding the flock besides that of public preaching. Dr W. next makes remarks on the word προεστωτες—which in this verse is rendered rule. He says "It is susceptible of a more general or a more special signification, according to the circumstances and connexion in which it is found. It may denote the general duty of being over' the church, considered as comprehensive of both the departments of teaching

and ruling. It is equally appropriate when used of either. Or, if it happens to be introduced where the former of the two departments is otherwise mentioned, and is thus used distinctively, it may denote more specifically the latter, the department of ruling."-P. 206. He afterwards adds, "I am inclined to understand it in the former-(the general sense) -as meaning, 'the elders who discharge the functions of their office well,'-these functions including the twofold oversight of teaching and of ruling." I apprehend that Dr W. will find few Greek scholars to agree with him, when he affirms that the word πроeσTWτes "is equally appropriate, when used 'either of teaching or of ruling."" Were any one to translate it by the word teaching, an appeal to the lexicon would show that this translation is untenable. The common and literal meaning of the term is superintendence-oversight-rule. Dr W. may indeed say, that the oversight of an elder over the church, or of a father over his family, is associated with, or includes in it, the duty of teaching. But the ruling and the teaching are two distinct things. The one does not necessarily imply in it the other. There may be ruling without teaching, and there may be teaching without ruling, and there may be the two associated together. Dr W. himself admits that the two are distinct; for he speaks of the "twofold oversight of teaching and ruling." When, therefore, he affirms, that the term προεστωτες—whichisemployed to express the official duty of the elders as bearing rule over the church-comprehends in it "both the departments of teaching and ruling, he is affixing to it a meaning which it does not necessarily convey-he is taking for granted the very thing that he ought to prove; namely, that teaching and ruling are always conjoined in the oversight with which elders are invested over the house of God. Besides, according to my friend's own

statement, when this term is introduced where the teaching is other wise mentioned," it may denote more specifically the latter, the department of ruling." Is it not introduced where the teaching is other wise mentioned, in the verse under consideration, "they that labour in word and doctrine?". Why, then, does he not view it, according to his own statement, as denoting "specifically the department of ruling?" Why does he aver that it includes in it "the twofold oversight of teaching and of ruling?" I leave it with himself to reconcile the meaning which he here affixes to it, with his own principle of interpretation.

From the preceding remarks the reader will perceive, that by the elders mentioned in this verse, Dr Wardlaw understands ministers of the gospel-and by their ruling he understands the work of the ministry in general, comprehending in it "both the departments of teaching and ruling." According to the view which he takes, "the elders that rule well," mean those ministers who both teach and rule with a more than ordinary degree of diligence and fidelity. These are the elders who are to receive double honour. If this be the meaning of the first part of the verse, then what necessity was there for the second,“especially they who labour in the word and doctrine?" Are not these the very persons who, according to Dr Wardlaw's interpretation, have already been mentioned by the apostle in the first part of the verse,-namely, ministers of the gospel who not only rule, but who labour in the word and doctrine, and who do it well? Is there any thing more than this necessary to be added, in order to complete the apostle's meaning, when he is pointing out who those office-bearers are that are entitled to receive double honour? Yet he has thought proper to add these words-" especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" —as if he were making a distinction

between one class of elders and another.

In order to get over this difficulty, Dr Wardlaw tells us that the word in the original (KOTLOVTES), which in the latter part of the verse is rendered labour, means to be laborious. "This" (he says) "is its proper meaning." "It does not denote work merely, but labour, and labour of an exhausting kind and degree-labour to fatigue." -P. 212. By the help of this criticism, my friend thinks that he gets over the difficulty; for he endeavours to persuade us that the apostle, in the latter part of the verse, is making a distinction, not between elders who labour in word and doctrine, and those who do not labour in them, but between elders who are laborious in discharging the duties of their office, and those who are not laborious. It is certainly a nice distinction which is here made between the terms labour and laborious. I had always thought that if a person laboured in any work, he might be called laborious-and the contrary. But it seems that, before he

can be styled laborious, he must labour to exhaustion and fatigue; and this, we are told, is the kind of labour expressed by the Greek word κοπιαω. To show that this criticism is more ingenious than solid, I request those of my readers who are acquainted with the Greek language, to take their Testaments, and to examine those passages where the verb коTIаw, and its co-relative noun Kоños, occur, and they will find that both these words are usually employed, by the New Testament writers, to express labour in the ordinary sense, without any particular reference to fatigue or exhaustion. They will find, moreover, that where a more than ordinary degree of labour is intended to be expressed, some epithet (such as πολλα or περισσorepov) is added to these words, to give them their proper degree of intensity. I shall mention a few in

stances.

John iv. 38.—“ I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour (ὅ ουχ ύμεις εκοπιασατε, that which ye have not laboured); other men laboured (EKOTIασav), and ye are entered into their labours." The reference in this verse is to the ordinary labours of the husbandman (as may be seen by looking at the preceding verse) in ploughing, sowing, and reaping his fields; and the meaning of the Saviour is not -that he had sent his disciples to reap where they had not labourel to fatigue or exhaustion—but he had sent them to reap where they had not laboured at all. It is labour in the ordinary sense which the verb κоaw here

expresses.

1 Cor. iv. 12.-" And we labour (KOTTIμEV), working with our own hands." Eph. iv. 28.-" Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour (коTIаT), working with his own hands." There is no allusion in either of these verses to any extraordinary or special labour --such as labouring more than others, or labouring to exhaustion; but the obvious meaning of the verb in both passages is that of persons labouring, in the ordinary sense of the term, at some handicraft, in order to gain a livelihood to themselves.

Acts xx. 35.-" I have showed you all things, how that so labouring (koTVTas) ye ought to support the weak." The meaning of the verb here, is exactly the same as that which we have just noticed in the verses previously quoted; namely, ordinary labour at some manual employment.

Rom. xvi. 12.- Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour (Komoras) in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, who laboured much (oλλa EKOTLAσEV) in the Lord." Here the apostle makes a distinction between one person who simply laboured, and another person who laboured much in the Lord. It is the verb KоTIα which he employs in both of these cases; but, in the latter case, he uses the word oλa along with it, to give to

it an intensity of meaning which it does not of itself possess. This verse appears to be very decisive as to the meaning which the apostle attached to the word in dispute. It is clear that he understood by it nothing more than labour in the ordinary sense. shall quote only another instance.

I

1 Thes. v. 12.-"We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour (TOVS KOTIVтas) among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you." In this verse it is the very same term in the original which is rendered labour, that is so translated in 1 Tim. v. 17; and it is applied to exactly the same class of persons, namely, those who bear rule in the house of God. If Dr Wardlaw's interpretation of this term be the right one, then it will follow from it, that the Thessalonians were not to know, and not to esteem in love, the whole of their spiritual guides, but only those of them who were more laborious than the rest-those who laboured unto fatigue. If Dr Wardlaw affixes this meaning to the verse

and he is bound by his own principle of interpretation to do so-then he stands singular in the view which he gives of it. In this exhortation, which the apostle addressed to the Thessalonians, he obviously refers to all who laboured among them as elders-whether they merely ruled, or whether they both taught and ruled

and the meaning of the exhortation is, that the Thessalonians were to honour and love all their spiritual rulers for their work's sake.

These instances which I have adduced of the meaning of the word κοπιαω (and they are merely a specimen of what might have been quoted), will suffice to show that the writers of the New Testament use this term to express ordinary labour-and not in the sense which Dr Wardlaw affixes to it, when he says, "its proper meaning is labour of an exhausting kind and degree-labour to fatigue." When he affirms that this is its meaning in