The advocates for presbytery next contend, that. the bishops or presbyters of the apostolical age, were usually the pastors, each of a single congregation. They say, usually the pastors, each. of a single con gregation, because, as they affirm, there are instances where two or more pastors have been allotted to one Christian assembly ; though the converse of this pro position is not true, that there are instances in the age referred to, of two or more congregations sub jected to the authority of one bishop. In establish ing the proposition enunciated above, it is asserted, that, when Titus, acting in the capacity of an extra ordinary minister,. was left at Crete, it was, for the following purposes, among others, "ghat he should, ordain presbyters or bishops in every city," Tit. i. 5. Now, from this statement, it is evident, at first sight, that these presbyters or bishops could not be diocesans. Had it been the intention of Paul to. establish, by the agency of Titus, a diocesan autho rity in Crete, we should have• found one individual put in possession of that authority, with a college of priests for his assistants. But this was not the case Titus was left to ordain presbyters or bishops in• every city, that is, to furnish the Christians of each ' city with an ordinary pastor. From the most an cient•catalogues and histories, with which we are ac quainted, we learn, that there were eleven of these pastors in the island alluded to ; a fact obviously in compatible with the Episcopalian hypothesis, unless we can believe, that, in the small island of Crete, and at this early period of the church, there were no fewer than eleven diocesans, each having an array of priests and congregations under his ecclesiastical ju risdiction. The presbyters or bishops, ordained by Paul and Barnabas, (Acts of the Apostles, xiv. 23.) -appear likewise to have been the spiritual instructors of individual churches. In short, say the advocates for presbytery, the fact is, as we have stated it, and, taking the inspired writers as the highest and best authority, our antagonists will search in vain for the office of a bishop, according to the modern interpre tation of that word, among the functionaries esta blished by the apostles in the Christian churches. This is even allowed by many of the Episcopalians themselves, " Est sane admodum prccaria," says Mr Dodwell, " omnis ills argunseniatio, qua colligi tur discipliner. eccicsiasticce in poster= recipiendce, rationem 011111C771 e Scripturis Novi Fcederis csse ban riendam. Nullus miens est qui id prqfitiatur aperte sacri scriptoris locus." Parcenesis, N. 14.. Can that, therefore, (the Presbyterians ask,) be an insti tution of Christ, for which there is no authority in the sacred writings, and which, by the account of the author just quoted, was not in existence 'before the conclusion of the apostolical period ? We should here introduce a conspectus of the ar guments for a government by church courts, com posed of members all possessed of equal authority, together with the criticisms on the word 2rgsr:v1agior, as it occurs in sacred scripture ; but the limits pre scribed for this article, oblige us to refer the reader to another part of our work. See PRESBYTERY.
To the arguments of the Presbyterians, the friends of Episcopacy have not been backward to reply. They contend, that both the name and authority of bishops may be referred to a very early period of the Christian church. They regard the apostles them selves as a college of bishops ; and their successors, in the episcopate, as deriving from them their juris diction and privileges. They give more weight than the Presbyterians allow, to a tradition, which, they say, prevailed universally in the times immediately succeeding the apostolical period, and from which they consider themselves as entitled to affirm, that James, the son of Alpheus, otherwise called James the Less, and the Lord's brother, was the first bi shop of Jerusalem ; and, by the same authority, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. In corroborat
ing this tradition, they quote a passage from Ter tullian, an author who lived in the second century, where he challenges the heretics " to exhibit the or der of their bishops, so succeeding each other from the beginning, that the first bishop had for his au thor and predecessor some one of the apostles, or of those apostolical men who were their companions in labour ;" a challenge which evidently supposes, that the orthodox Christians were Able to exhibit such an order : And, accordingly, he goes on to state, that •1 the church of Smyrna has Polycarp placed there by St John ; that the church of Rome has Clement ordained by St Peter ; and that the rest of the churches show other persons, who, being placed in the bishoprics by the apostles, transmitted the apos tolical seed." (De Pries. adv. !heretic. p. 78.) The examples of Timothy and Titus, however, ap pear to be more decisive in favour of Episcopacy than that of the apostles. Hence much authority has been ascribed to these examples, considered as a part of the original institute, more especially intended for the direction of succeeding ages. At the same t;Me, it must be granted, that no little doubt has been enter tained with respect to the exact nature of the office held by these evangelists. But, while this is grant ed, it is (say the Episcopalians) not to be denied, that many things concerning them are abundantly certain. The introduction of Episcopacy seems to have been progressive. Though it be admitted, that there were presbyters or elders of the church, at E phesus (Acts xx. 17. and 28.) in the year 58, and that these presbyters or elders, are, in a general sense, denominated bishops, as exercising functions similar to those of the episcopate ; and though it be farther admitted, that when these presbyters or el ders are spoken of, it is without any allusion to an in dividual bishop at that time existing among them, yet it must be considered, that this was the early and imperfect state of the Ephesian church. For we are told, that, in the year 64•, when Christianity was more advanced, Timothy was established at Ephe sus by Paul, to ordain elders, and stop the progress of divisions and schisms ; or, in other words, he was settled, there with authority, corresponding to that which we now call Episcopal, ( I Tim. i. 3. and iii. 1.) Accordingly, the apostle wrote, in the same year, a letter to 'Timothy, in which he laid be fore him the necessary duty of a bishop, as well as the requisite qualifications for that office. The pa trons of Episcopacy like•ice inquire, " what is it, after all, that constitutes the chief difference be tween our antagonists and us ?" And they answer the question : The chief difference consists in this, that, with us, the right or power of ordination re sides in an individual, while, with them, it belongs to a court. Now we contend (say they,) that the former of these is established, and the latter excluded by the instance or case of Titus. He was left in Crete for this especial purpose, that he, not a court, but an individual, might ordain presbyters or elders in every city. And, from the example of Titus, or rather of ordination by an individual, exemplified in him, they denounce the Presbyterians, sometimes perhaps with more fury than the argument drawn from the case will allow, as unlicensed and daring intruders into the ministry of the New Testament.