"pillars," or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewish
capital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employed
to establish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greater
plausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoot
himself acknowledges that, about the close of the first century,
we cannot find a trace of the episcopate in either of the two
great Christian Churches of Rome and Corinth. [63:1] "At the close
of the first century," says he, "Clement writes to Corinth, as at
the beginning of the second century Polycarp writes to Philippi.
As in the latter Epistle, so in the former, there is no allusion
to the episcopal office." [63:2] He might have said that, even
after the middle of the second century, it did not exist either in
Smyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that "as late as the close of
the second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as
distinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery." [63:3]
"The first bishop of Alexandria," says he, "of whom any distinct
incident is recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary
of Origen," [63:4] who flourished in the third century.
Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the same place, that "at Alexandria
the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelve
presbyters out of their own number." [63:5] Instead of asserting,
as has been done, that no single fact relating to the history of
the Christian Church during the first half of the second century
can be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate was
widely spread in the early years of the second century in Asia
Minor and elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at the
date here mentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it was
established ANYWHERE.

Irenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy,