that in laying their hands upon others, they were not assisted in the act of ordination by the "laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," nor, for the same reason, we may add, is there anything to show that this laying on of the hands of the Presbyterate (which remember we continue to observe to this day) was any the less a real transmission of Divine Power and Authority than is the corresponding act in the case of the Bishops to-day when assisting the Presiding Bishop in the Service of Consecration. After all is said and done, therefore, it remains an undeniable fact that Presbyters do ordain to-day, in conjunction with their Bishops just as truly and as authoritatively as the Assisting Bishops do truly and authoritatively consecrate in connection with their Presiding Bishop, and there is no more reason to explain away the first as a mere meaningless and empty rite, than there is to fix a like interpretation upon the second.

Finally, not only does all the evidence afforded by the New Testament lead to the conclusion that there were but these two Orders (Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons) but all the evidence of the next succeeding centuries goes to show that this was the general understanding of the early Church, and that even after the duties of the Presiding Elder had become more pronounced, and matters of government and ordination more and more left to his care and direction, as a matter of economy, the fact that these powers were merely delegated by the sovereign Presbytery, that his was a mere function or Office of that Order, and not an independent Order in itself, was never forgotten. In short, the present idea of the Episcopate is the result only of a long process of evolution, and it is only within a comparatively recent period that the identity of Bishop and Presbyter in point of Order, with its necessary corollary, the inherent power of Presbyters to ordain, has become so obscured, that it has even been forgotten in some quarters. Yet, as we have already said, if even so prejudiced a writer as Blunt candidly admits this-declaring that "it was not until the close of the Sixteenth Century that the distinction between the Orders of Bishops and Priests was asserted," how can "Catholics" maintain that this "distinction" was of Apostolic origin, and universally admitted by the early Church, or wherein is our position incredible?

But while it is hardly fair for our good "Catholic" friends to dispute the words of an authority so weighty with them, yet for the sake of argument we will nevertheless proceed to give a summary (necessarily brief) of the evidence supporting this conclusion. In doing so, we wish particularly to call attention to the fact that even the Ignatian Epistles, upon which the advocates of exclusive Episcopacy are prone to lay so much stress, with all the emphasis which they undoubtedly place upon the Office of

• So also, the Rev. Wm. Maskell tells us: "The balance of authority, even from the earliest ages, certainly inclines to consider the Episcopate, as an Order, to be identical with the Priesthood, but the completion of it" (Mon. Rit., vol. III., lxxxii, et. seq.). We believe Mr. Maskell is one of the foremost authorities with High Churchmen generally.

Bishop, give absolutely no evidence of an Episcopal Order, governing and ordaining without the assistance of the Presbyterate, THE WHOLE POINT TO BE PROVED, whereas they, indirectly, and much contemporary literature, directly, confirm the opinion that the two were identical in point of Order.

A.D. 90 TO A.D. 200

Clemens Romanus. (30-100?) (Epistle to the Corinthians, 95-97?) Bishops and Presbyters identified as one and the same Order. Author clearly states that the Apostles appointed only "Bishops and Deacons," but calls the former "Bishops" or "Presbyters" indifferently.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. (95-105.) Refers only to the two Orders of Bishops or Elders, and Deacons. "Appoint for yourselves, therefore, Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord."

Ignatian Epistles. (107-116.) We refer here only to the seven "genuine" epistles, so-called, for all the others ascribed to Ignatius are now universally acknowledged to be spurious. The emphasis here placed upon the Office of Bishop is marked, but, as we have said before, there is nothing to indicate that the Bishopric was regarded as a separate Order, governing and ordaining independently of the Presbyterate, but much evidence to the contrary. Thus, (1) Ephesians. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, all mentioned, and the first prominently, but the government of the Church is in hands of Bishop and Presbytery conjointly. "It is, therefore meet for you in every way to glorify Jesus Christ who glorified you; that submitting yourselves to your Bishop and Presbytery, ye may be sanctified in all things." "Obey the Bishop and Presbytery without distraction of mind." No references to Ordination.

..

(2) Magnesians. Like the former epistle, affords evidence that the Church here was governed by a Bishop in conjunction with the Presbyters-no evidence of a separate Order. "Neither do ye anything without the Bishop and the Presbyters." No references to Ordination.

(3) Trallians. Evidence substantially the same as in preceding Epistles with regard to Bishops and Presbyters; but note, Ignatius refers to himself as not possessing the authority of an Apostle, thus implying that he did not regard himself as a Successor of the Apostle. This is fatal to the "Catholic” view, and in line with all the other evidence that the original Bishops succeeded to the Apostles only in so far as the Apostles were the Presiding Elders, and not to any exclusive powers and prerogatives of an Apostolate per se, which before the organization of Churches they may have been compelled to exercise.*

(4) Romans. No evidence afforded as to constitution of the Ministry. Again asserts that he is not an Apostle. "I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."

(5) Philadelphians. Evidence substantially the same as to constitution of the Ministry. It is noteworthy, however, that he distinctly asserts that "the Apostles are the Presbytery of the Church."

(6) Smyrnæans. Necessity of being at unity with the Bishop as the head of the governing Presbytery and of the Church emphasized, but still no evidence to prove that he either governed or ordained independently. Like language might be applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury today, as the governing head of the Church of England, without necessitating the conclusion

• What we mean to say is that there is no evidence that the Apostolate per se was ever intended to be perpetuated in the Church. As the founders or organizers of the Church, they (the Apostles) necessarily had work to do, and functions to perform which were in themselves unique; but once the Church was established and a definite Ministry organized, there is nothing to warrant the assumption that they continued to exercise these peculiar functions, and did not, on the contrary, identify themselves with the highest Order of that Ministry they had established-occupying nothing more than a mere Office of Presidency therein, to which, in time, others succeeded.