Ir is now a considerable number of years since it was rumoured that the Rev. Dr Wardlaw was preparing a work on the subject of Church Government, for the purpose of vindicating the claims of Independency; and from the wellknown talents and learning of the author, high expectations were entertained in certain quarters that the vindication would prove effective. The rumour has turned out to be correct. The long-expected work has lately made its appearance in the form of a respectable-looking volume, containing nearly 400 pages. In a dedicatory preface, addressed to the deacons and other members of his church, the Doctor states, that he regards the publication of this volume as the accomplishment of "a long-cherished purpose," and the fulfilment of "a long due promise." He states further, that a considerable proportion of the sheets has been lying beside him in manuscript, "for a good many years"-and that, having been latterly laid aside, by the command of his physicians, from official public duty, he has spent a portion of his leisure time in altering and

* Congregational Independency as contradistinguished to Episcopacy and Presby

NO. II. VOL. II.

enlarging the work "to no inconsiderable extent.". It is not, therefore, a hastily got up production which he now presents to the world. It has been long in a course of preparationtouched and re-touched by the pen of the author-and comes before us with all the advantages which mature reflection and a long course of extensive reading and of intense study may be supposed to confer. That Independency has met with an acute and able advocate in Dr Wardlaw, none, who are familiar with his previous writings, will question. I do not believe that Independency could. have found an abler defender in the present day: and, if he have failed in establishing his point, namely, that his favourite model of ecclesiastical government is the one which the King of Zion has appointed for his Church-the failure cannot be attributed to any want of zeal or ability on the part of the advocate, but must be ascribed rather to the inherent weakness of the cause which he has undertaken to support. The volume is characterised by the distinguishing excellencies of its esteemed author. It is perspicuous in its terianism: the Church Polity of the New Testament. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D.

C

style-ingenious in its reasoningscandid in its general tone-and pervaded from beginning to end by a truly christian spirit. Though, as a presbyterian, I must demur to many of the statements which it contains, yet I have risen from the perusal of it with my sentiments of respect, high as these were before, increased for the able and accomplished individual by whom it has been penned.

I request permission to occupy a few pages of the United Presbyterian Magazine, in this, and probably in one or two succeeding numbers, in making some strictures on Dr Wardlaw's newly published book. The importance of the subject, and the strong exclusive claims which Dr W. lays before the public, in behalf of his favourite Independency, will plead my apology for the request which I now make. In the observations which I am about to submit to the reader, I shall pursue some such method as the following. I shall, first, join issue with the Doctor concerning the scriptural authority of the ruling elder-secondly, examine the grounds on which he maintains the divine authority of the Independent form of church government-thirdly, consider the opinions which he expresses concerning the meeting of the apostles and elders held at Jerusalem, of which an account is given in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts-and, lastly, make some remarks concerning the practical working of Independency as compared with Presbyterianism. While, in the course of the observations which I am about to make on these different topics, I shall have occasion freely to animadvert on some of the statements made by the respected author of the volume now under consideration, and to question the soundness of some of the criticisms which he makes on controverted passages, it is proper at the same time to state, that there are many portions of the book which command

my cordial assent. I not merely approve of, but admire the sentiments which they contain. I heartily respond to the opinion which the writer expresses, that the question— what form of government ought to be adopted in the Church-is one which must be determined by an appeal to the Scriptures; and that the instructions of the Saviour, and the example of the apostles, must be regarded as binding on us in reference to the settlement of this question. I also acquiesce, for the most part, in the excellent remarks which he makes, when describing the materials of which a Christian Church ought to be composed. be composed. Along with him, I pronounce diocesan Episcopacy to be an ecclesiastico-political system totally destitute of foundation in the word of God. We are further agreed, as to there being only two orders of office-bearers recognised in the apostolical writings, as belonging to the Christian Church-namely, elders and deacons. But Dr Wardlaw, in common with the religious denomination to which he belongs, demurs to the division, made by presbyterians, of those who bear the office of the eldership into two classes-namely, elders who both teach and rule, and elders who merely rule. This last class is, by way of distinction, denominated ruling elders. Our Independent brethren maintain, that there is no such class of elders as this recognised in the New Testament-and that, in every instance, in which mention is made of elders in connexion with the Christian Church, the term has a reference to persons who both teach and rule. In other words, the only elders recognised by them are their pastors. This, of course, is the ground which Dr Wardlaw occupies, when treating of the office-bearers of the Church and, in endeavouring to maintain this ground, he first adduces a variety of passages for the purpose of showing that all elders are enjoin

ed to teach as well as to rule; and, secondly, he makes a variety of criticisms for the purpose of invalidating the proofs, which presbyterians adduce from the New Testament, to show that there is a distinction made between what are called ruling elders and those who, besides ruling, also labour in word and doctrine.

This is the first point on which I join issue with Dr Wardlaw; namely, the subject of the ruling elder. I shall examine the statements and criticisms which he has made on this part of the subject, and shall thereby afford my readers an opportunity of judging for themselves how far this ingenious and able writer has been successful in shaking this main pillar of presbyterianism.

In combating the views which presbyterians hold upon this point, Dr W. first adduces a variety of passages for the purpose of showing that all elders are enjoined to teach as well as to rule. The passages, which he adduces for this purpose, are those where elders are exhorted to feed (Tоpawew) or act the part of shepherds to the flock, Acts xx. 28, and 1 Pet. v. 2; those where it is mentioned among the necessary qualifications of an elder, that he be "apt to teach," and that he be able "by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers," 1 Tim. iii. 2, and Tit. i. 9; those where elders are described as admonishing the people, and as having spoken to them the word of God, 1 Thess. v. 12, and Heb. xiii. 7; and those where elders are spoken of as stewards, 1 Cor. iv. 1. The reasoning of Dr W. upon these passages is, that as elders are required to act the part of shepherds to the flock, and as it is the business of a shepherd to feed as well as to guide his flock, so it is the duty of elders to give spiritual provision to the flock of Christ, that is, to instruct them in divine truth. As elders are required to be "apt to teach," so it must be their duty to teach; and as they are required to

be able, "by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers," so it must be their duty to exhort and convince. As they are spoken of as admonishing, so it must be their duty to admonish. As elders are compared to stewards, and as it is the business of a steward not only to superintend but to victual the household, so it is the duty of elders to give spiritual provision to the people, that is, to instruct them in the knowledge of divine truth. This is the sum total of the argument, which Dr W. deduces from the above passages, to prove that there is but one class of elders recognised in the New Testament, and that this class consists of persons who both teach and rule.

Before the argument founded on these passages can be of any avail in proving the point which it is Dr W.'s object to establish, it must first be shown that the teaching, exhorting, convincing, and admonishing, referred to in the above passages, mean exclusively the communicating of religious instruction by the public ministrations of the gospel. Until he has shown this, his argument must be regarded as entirely inconclusive. For the position which he undertakes to establish, is, that the only elders recognised in the New Testament are ministers of the gospel, who are styled "pastors and teachers." And it is not enough to tell us that he has made good his point, by quoting certain passages in which elders are enjoined to feed the flock of God, by instructing them in divine truth, and in which it is stated that they must be apt to teach, and must be able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainsayers. If none but ministers of the gospel were authorized to do these things, there might be some propriety in adducing such passages to prove, that elders and ministers of the gospel are, in every instance, identically the same. But surely Dr Wardlaw, with all the zeal

which he manifests for the establishment of his favourite theory, will not contend that admonishing, exhorting, convincing, and communicating religious instructions in general, may not be lawfully done by other persons, as well as by those who are invested with the sacred office. Not only office-bearers in the church, but private members, are enjoined to attend to these things. Paul, addressing himself to the members of the church of Thessalonica, says, 1 Thess. v. 11, "Wherefore comfort (or exhort, TаракаλEITE) yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do." And in the fourteenth verse of the same chapter, he says, "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak," &c. The word in the original here translated, "warn" is vovbereite (admonish), and is the same which is employed in the twelfth verse of the chapter, in describing the duty of office-bearers. Again, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, addressing himself, not to the office-bearers, but to the converts generally, says, chap. iii. 13, "Exhort one another daily." If private members are enjoined to do these things-to comfort-to warn -to admonish-to edify-and to exhort; is it at all strange that ruling elders should be enjoined to feed the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers, by doing exactly the same things? It appears incontrovertible, from the references now made, that when persons are enjoined to attend to these duties, this does not necessarily imply, that they must therefore be understood as invested with the office of the ministry. What, then, becomes of Dr Wardlaw's argument, which he rests solely upon the above passages, as proving the identity in all cases of the elder and the pastor? It falls to the ground. Presbyterians admit, that all pastors are elders or over

all elders are pastors-in the sense of their being ministers of the gospel. If this be a scripture doctrine, it must be established by some other passages than those which Dr W. has adduced in support of it.

I am not aware that presbyterians object to ruling elders exhorting and convincing the gainsayers, admonishing the people, or feeding the flock by communicating spiritual instruction, any more than they object to their ministers doing these things. That they be "apt to teach" is regarded as a recommendation of the former, no less than of the latter. There are many, very many of the elders who are most actively and usefully employed in communicating religious instruction to the flock in various ways, such as in the Sabbath teaching which they give to the young, in the domiciliary visits which they pay to the bed of affliction and to the house of mourning, and in the social meetings of the people held for prayer and religious conference. Numerous are the instances in which they reprove, rebuke, and exhort. In doing such things as these, they are not considered as intruding themselves into the office of the holy ministry, nor as stepping beyond that line of duty prescribed to them as ruling elders. They watch for souls as they that must give an account; and they are to endeavour by means of their prayers, their holy example, their faithful superintendence, and their instructions, to promote the temporal and the spiritual welfare of those over whom they have the oversight.

I have not yet done with Dr Wardlaw on the subject of the ruling elder. In that part of his book to which my present remarks more immediately refer, he makes a variety of criticisms on those passages adduced by presbyterians from the New Testament, to prove, that there is a distinction made between elders who merely rule, and those who, besides

ruling, labour also in word and doctrine. The object of his criticisms is to show, that these passages do not prove that any such distinction exists. I now proceed to consider the manner in which he disposes of these passages. They are three in number-Rom. xii. 6-8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; and 1 Tim. v. 17.

The first passage is Rom. xii. 6-8. "Having then gifts, differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness."

Any person who reads this passage will perceive that, in the various clauses, mention is made of different gifts possessed by different members of the church: and the object of the apostle is to show how each ought to exercise the particular gift which he possessed. Teaching and ruling are stated to be two of these gifts. They are not merely mentioned as different gifts, but they are represented as being exercised by different individuals. The person who exercised the gift of teaching was called ő didaσkwv—“ he that teacheth;" and the person who exercised the gift of ruling was called рoïoтaμevos ὅ προϊσταμενος "he that ruleth." Are we to suppose that the members of the church, to whom these statements were originally addressed, would not know who the persons were by whom these different gifts were exercised? We cannot suppose any such thing. They would know most distinctly who the persons were whose peculiar business it was to teach, and those also whose peculiar business it was to rule. Dr Wardlaw himself expresses no doubt upon this point. He says (page 194), “That each of the phrases used would be distinctly enough understood by

those to whom the epistle was addressed, there can be little doubt." He seems, however, to think that the different phrases employed in these verses were not intended to describe official character. "The whole passage (he says) might be interpreted as a simple direction respecting the spirit and manner in which the duties of prophecy, of ministry, of teaching, of exhorting, of giving, of ruling, and of showing mercy, ought to be fulfilled, without designing to express any distinctive appropriation of each of these to a particular official class.”—P. 194.

What we have to do with, at present, is the two gifts of teaching and ruling, specially mentioned in the passage above quoted. That the teaching here mentioned was official teaching, is abundantly evident from the exhortation given to the person who had the charge of it, to wait upon his teaching; and, with regard to the ruling, I am not aware of any instance in the New Testament in which ruling in the church must not be understood as descriptive of office. The question, then, that presents itself is-Were the teaching and the ruling invariably united in the same person? or, was there one class of persons whose special business it was to teach, and another class whose special business it was to rule? I ask, which of these states of the question does the passage under review warrant us in adopting? Most assuredly, the latter. It shows us as plainly as language can do, that teaching and ruling were not invariably conjoined in the same person; that there was a class whose special duty it was to teach, and another class whose special duty it was to rule. To each of these classes a separate injunction is addressed by the apostle. He addresses them as different persons, exercising diffferent gifts.

In order to destroy the force of this interpretation, Dr W. makes the