PRESBYTERIANS, Protestants, so called from their maintaining that the government of the church appointed in the New Testament was by presbyteries, that is, by associations of presbyters or elders, all possessed of equal powers, without any superiority among them either in office or in order.

The presbyterians believe, that the authority of their ministers to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, and to feed the flock of Christ, is in no respect inferior to the authority possessed by the ministers of any other church. They oppose the independent scheme of the common rights of Christians by the same arguments which are used for that purpose by the episcopalians, (see Episcocacy). They affirm, however, that in the church, as established by Christ and his apostles, there is no order superior to that of presbyters; that all ministers are equal by their commission; that presbyter and bishop, though different words, are of the same import; and that prelacy or diocesan episcopacy was gradually established upon the primitive practice of making the moderator or president of the presbytery a permanent officer.

These positions they maintain against the episcopalians by the following scriptural arguments. They observe, that the apostles planted churches by ordaining bishops and deacons in every city; that the ministers which in one verse are called bishops, are in the next perhaps denominated presbyters; that we nowhere read in the New Testament of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in any one church; and that therefore we are under the necessity of concluding bishop and presbyter to be two names for the same church officer. This is apparent from Peter’s exhortation to the elders ον presbyters who were among the Jewish Christians. “The elders (presbyters) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (iitiaκοπ∙ουντeς, acting as bishops thereof,) not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of [7:18:524]a ready mind; neither as beingnonns over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”^[1. Peter v. 1, 2, 3. ] From this passage it is evident, that the presbyters not only fed the flock of Christ, but also governed that flock with episcopal powers; and that the apostle himself, as an officer of the church, was nothing more than a presbyter or elder. The identity of the office of bishop and presbyter is still more apparent from Heb. xiii. 7. 17. and 1 Thess. v. Γ2; for the bishops are there represented as governing the flock, speaking to them the word of God, watching for their souls, and discharging various offices, which it is impossible for any man to perform to more than one congregation.

From the last cited text it is evident, that the bishops (προϊστάμενους) of the Thessalonian churches had the pastoral care of no more souls than they could hold personal communion with in God’s worship; for they were such as all the people were to know, esteem, and love, as those that not only were over them, but also “closely laboured among them, and admonished them.” But diocesan bishops, whom ordinarily the hundredth part of their flock never hear nor see, cannot be those bishops by whom that flock is admonished, nor can they be, wiiat Peter requires the bishops of the Jewish converts to bc, ensamples to the flock. It is the opinion of Dr. Hammond, who was a learned divine, and a zealot for episcopacy, that the elders whom the apostle Janies desires^[2. Chap. v. 14. ] the sick to call for, were of the highest permanent order of ecclesiastical officers; but it is self-evident that those elders cannot have been diocesan bishops, otherwise the sick must have been often beyond the reach of the remedy proposed to them.

There is no passage of Scripture on which the episcopalian is more ready to rest his cause, than the alleged episcopacy of Timothy and Titus; of whom the former is said to have been bishop of Ephesus, and the latter bishop of Crete; yet the presbyterian thinks it as clear as the noonday sun, that the presbyters of Ephesus were supreme governors under Christ of the Ephesian churches, at the very time that Timothy is pretended to have been their proper diocesan.

In Acts XX. 17, seq. we read, that “from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you, at all seasons. And now I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (6⅛ισκ0τrous∙, bishops'), to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I recommend you to God, and to the word of his grace,” &c.

From this passage, it is evident that there was in the city of Ephesus a plurality of pastors of equal authority, without any superior pastor or bishop over them; for the apostle directs his discourse to them all in common, and gives them equal power over the whole flock. Dr. Hammond indeed imagines, that the elders whom Paul called to Miletus were the bishops of Asia, and that he sent for them to Ephesus, because that city was the metropolis of the province. But were this opinion well-founded, it is not conceivable that the sacred writer would have called them the elders of the church of Ephesus, but the elders of the church in general, or the elders of the churches in Asia. Besides, it is to be remembered, that the apostle was in such haste to visit Jerusalem, that the sacred historian measures his time by days; whereas it must have required several months to call together the bishops or elders of all the cities of Asia; and he might certainly have gone to meet them at Ephesus in less time than would be requisite for their meeting in that city and proceeding thence to him at Miletus. They must therefore have been either the joint pastors of one congregation, or the pastors of different congregations in one city; and as it was thus in Ephesus, so was it in Philippi; for we find the apostle addressing b.is epistle “to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” From the passage betore us it is likewise plain, that the presbyters of Ephesus had not only the name but the whole power of bishops given to them by the Holy Ghost; for they are enjoined to do the whole work of bishops, ποιμαίνεις την εκκλησίαν του Qεου, which signifies, to rule as well as feed the church of God. Hence it is evident, that the apostle makes the power of governing inseparable from that of preaching and watching; and that according to him, all who are preachers of God’s word, and watchmen of souls, are necessarily rulers or governors of the church, without being accountable for their management to any prelate, but only to their Lord Christ, from whom their power is derived.

It appears therefore that the apostle Paul left: in the church of Ephesus, which he had planted, no other successors to himself than presbyter-bishops, or presbyterian ministers, and that he did not devolve bis power upon any prelate. Timothy, whom the episcopalians allege to have been the first bishop of Ephesus, was present when this settlement was made;^[3. Acts xx. 5. ] and it is surely not to be supposed, that, had he been their bishop, the apostle would have devolved the whole episcopal power upon the presbyters before his face. If ever there was a season fitter than another for pointing out the duty of this supposed bishop to his diocese, and the duty of his presbyters to him, it was surely when Paul was taking his final leave of them, and discoursing so pathetically concerning the duty of overseers, the coming of ravenous wolves, and the consequent hazard of the flock. In this farewell discourse, he tells them that “he had not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God.” But with what truth could this have been said, if obedience to a diocesan bishop had been any part of their duty either at the time of the apostle’s speaking or at any future period? He foresaw that ravenous wolves would enter in among them, and that even some of themselves should arise speaking perverse things; and if, as the Episcopalians allege, diocesan episcopacy was the remedy provided for those evils, is it not strange, passing strange, that the inspired preacher did not foresee that Timothy, who was standing beside him, was destined to fill that important office; or if he did foresee it, that he omitted to recommend him to his future charge, and to give him proper instructions for the discharge of his duty?

But if Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus, what, it may be asked, was his office in that city? For that he resided there for some time, and was by the apostle invested with authority to ordain and rebuke presbyters, are facts about which all parties are agreed, and which indeed cannot be controverted by any reader of Paul’s epistles. To this the presbyterian replies with confidence, that the power which Timothy exercised in the church of Ephesus was that of an evangelist,^[4. Tim. iv. 5. ] and not a prelate. But, according to Eusebius, the work of an evangelist was, “to lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations, and to constitute among them [7:18:525]pastors; after which he passed on to other countries.” Accordingly we find, that Timothy was resident for a time at Philippi and Corinth,^[5. Phil. ii. 19. 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10, 11. ] as well as at Ephesus, and that he had as much authority over those churches as over that of which he is said to have been the fixed bishop. “Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear, for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man therefore despise him.” This text might lead us to suppose, that Timothy was bishop of Corinth as well as of Ephesus; for it affords a more plausible ground than that on which his episcopacy of the latter church is chiefly built. The apostle says, “I besought thee^[6. Tim. i. 3. ] to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” But had Timothy been the permanent bishop of that city, there would surely have been no necessity for beseeching him to abide with his flock. It is likewise to be observed, that the first epistle to Timothy, which alone was written to him during his residence at Ephesus, was of a date prior to Paul’s meeting with the elders of that church at Miletus; for in the epistle he hopes to come to him shortly, whereas he tells the elders at Miletus, that they should see his face no more. This being the case, it is evident that Timothy was left by the apostle at Ephesus only to supply his place during his temporary absence at Macedonia, and that he could not possibly have been constituted permanent bishop of that church, since the episcopal powers were afterwards committed to the presbyters by the Holy Ghost in his presence.

The identity of the office of bishop and presbyter being thus clearly established, it follows, that the presbyterate is the highest permanent office in the church, and that every faithful pastor of a flock is successor to the apostles in every thing in which they were to have any successors. In the apostolic office there were indeed some things peculiar and extraordinary, such as their immediate call by Christ, their infallibility, their being witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection, and their unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world. These powers and privileges could not be conveyed by imposition of hands to any successors, whether called presbyters or bishops; but as rulers or office-bearers in particular churches, we have the confession of “the very chiefest apostles,” Peter and John, that they were nothing more than presbyters or labouring pastors. This being the case, the dispute, which has been so warmly agitated, concerning the validity of presbyterian ordination, may be soon decided; for if the ceremony of ordination be at all essential, it is obvious that such a ceremony performed by presbyters must be valid, as there is no higher order of ecclesiastics in the church by w hom it can be performed. Accordingly, we find, that Timothy himself, though said to be a bishop, was ordained by the laying on of the hands of a presbytery. At that ordination indeed St. Paul presided, but he could preside only as primus in paribus; for we have seen that, as permanent officers in the church of Christ, the apostles themselves were no more than presbyters. If the apostles’ hands were imposed for any other purpose, it must have been to communicate those charismata or miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were then so frequent, but which no modern presbyter or bishop will pretend to give, unless his understanding be clouded by the grossest ignorance, or perverted by the most frantic enthusiasm.

But if the office of bishop and presbyter was originally the same, how, it will be asked, came diocesan episcopacy to prevail so universally, as it is confessed to have done, before the conversion of Constantine, and the civil establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire? To give a satisfactory answer to this question is certainly the most arduous task which the advocate for presbytery has to perform; but the difficulties attending this task are not insurmount-table.

From many passages in the New Testament,^[7. Acts xi. 29; xiii, 1, 2, 3; xv. Tit. i. v. ] it is evident, that when the apostles planted churches in different cities, they generally settled more than one pastor in the same church, to feed and govern it with joint authority. The propriety of this constitution is obvious. In those days, when the disciples of Christ were persecuted for their religion, and often obliged to meet in the “night for fear of the Jews,” they could not with any degree of prudence assemble in large numbers; and therefore, had there been no more than one pastor in a city, the Christian converts, though, when assembled, they might have amounted to but a small congregation, could not all have enjoyed the benefit of public worship on the same day; at least it is obvious that they could not possibly have assembled for this purpose so often as their want of instruction, and the duty of “breaking of bread and of prayer,” required them to meet. It was therefore with great wisdom that the apostles ordained several presbyters in the same church; but as these presbyters would have occasion to meet frequently, and to deliberate on the state of the flock which it was their duty to feed, and over which they had all equal authority, they would be under the necessity of electing one of their own number to be president or moderator of the presbytery, that order might be preserved, and all things done with decency. At first there is reason to believe that those presidents held their office no longer than while the presbyteries sat in which they were elected. Among the apostles themselves there was no fixed president. Peter indeed appears to have been most frequently admitted to that honour; but there is one very memorable occasion on record, when James, the Lord’s brother, presided in an assembly of apostles, elders, and brethren, held at Jerusalem, to determine the question concerning the necessity of circumcising the Gentiles, and commanding them to keep the law of Moses.
^[8. Acts xv. ]

Upon this model were the primitive presbyteries formed. They consisted of several presbyters possessed of equal powers, who at their meetings appointed one of their own number to discharge the office of moderator or temporary president; but to this president they gave no prelatical powers or negative voice over the deliberations of his brethren; for, as Jerom informs us, the church was then governed communi presbyterorum concilio, “by a common council of presbyters.” It appears however that when an apostle, an apostolical man, or an evangelist, fixed his residence in any city, and took upon himself the pastoral care of part of the flock, his co-presbyters, from respect to his singular gifts, made him their constant and fixed moderator. Hence Timothy, during his abode at Ephesus, was moderator of the presbytery; and hence, too, Mark the evangelist, who resided many years in Alexandria, has been called the first bishop of that church, though he appears to have been nothing more than permanent moderator. We advance this upon the authority of Jerom, one of the most learned fathers of the Christian church, who informs us, that upon the death of the evangelist, the presbyters of Alexandria, for more than two hundred years, chose their bishops from their own number, and placed them in the episcopal chair, without dreaming that they ought to be raised to a higher order by a new consecration; “presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant.” As this practice of making the moderator of the presbytery of Alexandria a permanent officer, was thought a good expedient to guard the infant churches against schisms and divisions, those churches gradually adopted it. For, as Jerom tells us, “postquam [7:18:526]unusquisque eos quos baptisaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus, superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertincret, et schismatum semina tollerentur.”

The advantages which, in displaying his talents and authority, the perpetual president or speaker of any assembly has over his colleagues in office, are so obvious, that when the practice of electing their moderators for life became universal among the presbyteries of the primitive church, it is easy to conceive how ambitious men might so magnify the difficulties and importance of their station, as to introduce the custom of filling it by a new consecration of the bishop elect. But when this was done, diocesan episcopacy, with all its powers and prerogatives, would follow as a matter of course, until “by little and little,” as Jerom expresses himself, “the whole pastoral care of the flock was devolved upon one man.”

Our limits will not permit us to trace more minutely the rise and progress of this ecclesiastical usurpation, as the Presbyterian calls it; but the reader who wishes for fuller information, after studying the remains of the four first centuries of the Christian church, may consult, “An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, and Worship, of the Primitive Church,” written by Lord King, chancellor of England. As an impartial lover of truth, he will do well to consult also a book entitled, “An original Draught of the Primitive Church,” which was published as an answer to the Inquiry; and he may read with much advantage to himself, “A Letter from a Parochial Bishop to a Prelatical Gentleman,” with “An Apology for the Church of Scotland,” both written by Mr. Willison of Dundee, and both evincing considerable learning, and great ingenuity, • in their pious author. But during our own age, the ρres-byterian cause has been most ably maintained by Dr. ‘ Campbell, in his “Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,” and *by Dr. Mitchell, in his “Presbyterian Letters.”^[9. Presbyterian Letters, addressed to Bishop Skinner of Aberdeen, on his Vindication of Primitive Truth and Order: to which is prefixed, a Preliminary Discourse on the Present State of the Controversy concerning Ecclesiastical Government. By Patrick MitcheD, D.D., Minister of fit Kemnay, Aberdeenshire. Aberdeen, 1809, 8vo. ]

Of the churches at present formed upon this model, we believe, that without incurring the imputation of national prejudice, we may safely affirm the church of Scotland to be the most efficient. Her mode of worship is simple and solemn; her established faith agreeable to the confessions of most of the other Protestant churches; her judicatories are calculated to maintain the rights of the people; and her pastors are eminently distinguishedby their fidelity and zeal. In this respect, a gradual and very perceptible change has taken place in the course of the passing century. We cannot more properly conclude this article than with a short view of her constitution, as being that in which our Presbyterian readers are undoubtedly most interested.

No one is ignorant, that from the first dawn of reformation among us, till the era of the revolution, there was a perpetual struggle between the court and the people for the establishment of an Episcopal or a Presbyterian form of church government. The former model of ecclesiastical polity was patronised by the house of Stewart on account of the support which it gave to the prerogatives of the crown; the latter was the favourite of the majority of the people, perhaps not so much on account of its superior claim to apostolical institution, as because the laitv are mixed with the clergy in ecclesiastical judicatories, and the two orders, which under episcopacy are kept so distinct, incorporated into one body. In the Scottish church, every regulation of public worship, every act of discipline, and every ecclesiastical censure, which in other churches flows from the authority of a diocesan bishop, or from a convocation of the clergy, is the joint work of a certain number of clergymen and laymen acting together with equal authority, and deciding every question by a majority of votes. The laymen who thus form an essential part of the ecclesiastical courts of Scotland, are called ruling elders ; and hold the same office, as well as the same name, with those brethren^[10. 2Actsxv · ’ ’ ’ ] who joined with the apostles and elders at Jerusalem in determining the important question concerning the necessity of imposing upon the Gentile converts the ritual observances of the law of Moses. These lay-elders Paul enjoined Timothy^[11. Tim. V. 17. ] to account worthy of double honour, if they should rule well, and discharge the duties for which they were separated from the multitude of their brethren. In the church of Scotland every parish has several of those lay-elders, who are, or ought to be, grave and serious persons, chosen from among the beads of families, of known orthodoxy, and steady adherence to the worship, discipline, and government of the church. Being solemnly engaged to use their utmost endeavours for the suppression of vice and the cherishing of piety and virtue, and to exercise discipline faithfully and diligently, the minister, in the presence of the congregation, sets them apart to their office by solemn prayer; and concludes the ceremony, which is sometimes called ordination, with exhorting both elders and people to their respective duties.

The kirk-session, which is the lowest ecclesiastical judicatory, consists of the minister and those elders of the congregation. The minister is ex officio moderator, but has no negative voice over the decision of the session; nor indeed has he a right to vote at all, unless when the voices of the elders are equal and opposite. He may indeed enter his protest against their sentence, if he think it improper, and appeal to the decision of the presbytery; but this privilege belongs equally to every elder, as well as to every person who may believe himself aggrieved by the ] roceedings of the session. The deacons, whose proper office is to take care of the poor, may be present in every session, and offer their counsel on all questions that come before it; but except in what relates to the distribution of alms, they have no decisive vote with the minister and elders.

The next judicatory is the presbytery, which consists of all the pastors within a certain district, and one ruling elder from each parish, commissioned by his brethren to represent, in conjunction with the minister, the session of that parish. The presbytery treats of such matters as concern the particular churches within its limits; as the examination, admission, ordination, and censuring of ministers; the licensing of probationers, rebuking of gross or contumacious sinners, the directing of the sentence of excommunication, the deciding upon references and appeals from kirk-sessions, resolving cases of conscience, explaining difficulties in doctrine or discipline; and censuring, according to the word of God, any heresy or erroneous doctrine which hath either been publicly or privately maintained within the limits of its jurisdiction. Partial as we may be thought to our own church, we frankly acknowledge that we cannot altogether approve of that part of her constitution which gives an equal vote, in questions of heresy, to a plain mechanic and his educated pastor. In presbyteries, the only prerogatives which the pastors have over the ruling elders, are the power of ordination, and the privilege of having the moderator chosen from their body.

From the judgment of the presbytery, an appeal lies to the provincial synod, which commonly meets twice a-year, and which exercises over the presbyteries within the province a jurisdiction similar to that which is vested in each presbytery over its several kirk-sessions. Of these synods [7:18:527]there are in the church of Scotland fifteen, which are composed of the members of the several presbyteries within the respective provinces which give names to the synods.

The highest authority in the church is the general assembly, which consists of a certain number of ministers and ruling elders delegated from each presbytery, and of commissioners from the universities and royal burghs. A presbytery in which there are fewer than twelve parishes, sends to the general assembly two ministers and one ruling elder: if it contain between twelve and eighteen ministers, it sends three of these, and one ruling elder: if it contains between eighteen and twenty-four ministers, it sends four ministers and two ruling elders: and of twenty-four ministers, when it contains so many, it sends five with two ruling elders. Every royal burgh sends one ruling cider, and Edinburgh two. Their election must be attested by the kirk-sessions of the respective burghs. Every university sends one commissioner from its own body. The commissioners are annually chosen, six weeks before the meeting of the assembly: and the ruling elders are often men of the first eminence in the kingdom for rank and talents. In this assembly, which meets once a-year, the king presides by his commissioner, who is always a nobleman; but he has no voice in their deliberations. The order of their proceedings is regular, though sometimes the number of members creates a confusion, which the moderator, who is chosen from among the ministers, to be the chairman or speaker of the house, has not sufficient authority to prevent. To the general assembly appeals are brought from all the other ecclesiastical courts of Scotland; and in questions purely religious, no appeal lies from its determinations. In the subordination of these assemblies, parochial, presbyterial, provincial, and national, consists the external order, strength, and stedfastness, of the church of Scotland.