342 



BISHOP. 



Bishop, every city, that is, to furnish the Christians of cacli 

 """" *w" ' ' 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 thee 

 pastors in the island alluded to j 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 jrrecaria," says 

 Mr Dodwell, " omnis ilia argumentatio, qua colligj- 

 tur disciplines ecclesiastics in posterum recipiendec, 

 rationem omnem e Sctipturis Novi Foederis esse liau- 

 riendam. Nullus euim est qui id profitiatur 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 7r^;c-tv}r.^tct, 

 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 Puekbytery. 



To the arguments of the Presbvcerians, 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 

 t?.y, 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 

 " the church of Smyrna has I'olycarp placed there 



by St John ; that the church of Roms 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 Pi as. adv. Hcerelic. 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 gra;'- 

 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 ciders 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 alhioion 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 arc 

 told, that, in the year 61-, when Christianity wat> 

 more advanced, Timothy was established at Ephe- 

 Stis 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, ( 1 Tim. i. S. 

 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 likewise 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 trie 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. 



Another argument employed by the Episcopalians 

 is taken from the Epistles to the seven Asiatic 

 churches, mentioned in the Apocalypse. The epistles 

 alluded to are not addressed either to the churches 

 in general, or to any assembly of the rulers in these 

 churches, but to an individual, called in each instance 

 "the angel of thechurch," (Rev. ii.l.) " To the an- 

 gel of the Church of Ephcsus, write these things :" 

 " To the angel of the Church of Smyrna, say ;" and 

 so in all the other cases. Now, the Episcopalians 

 maintain, that the individuals here denominated the 





