voluntary restriction for economic considerations purely, and had no reference to any surrender of inherent power, is clearly evidenced from the fact that when a Bishop himself is to be appointed, it is ordered that "one shall be chosen from among the Bishops and Presbyters" to administer the rite of the laying on of hands, so revealing the original identity of the two, and further explaining, indirectly, the statements of Jerome and others (to be noted shortly) respecting the usage of the Church in Alexandria, that Bishops were elevated to Office by the Presbyters. The Canon relating to this reads: "Deinde eligatur unus ex episcopis et presbyteris, qui manum capiti ejus imponat et oret, dicens," etc. These Canons, therefore, clearly imply identity of Order, and the inherent power of Presbyters to ordain the issue before us.

Firmilian. (D. 266.) On the authority of Palmer, this well-known Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, must be ranked among those who held the identity of Order (cited Browne, ThirtyNine Articles, p. 563).

The Church of Alexandria. The most important testimony of all, comes from this Church, perhaps THE most important centre of Christian life and influence during the first few centuries, and which through all this period, or for TWO HUNDRED YEARS, regularly practiced PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION, the Bishops of that See being ELEVATED to office through the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. The evidence for this presented by Jerome, Hilary or Ambrose, Severus, Eutychius (himself a Bishop of Alexandria), and many later writers is so overwhelming, that the recent attempts of Canon Gore and a few other High Churchmen to discredit it, or place a different interpretation upon it (e. g., "that it is the witness of Jerome in a temper," that Eutychius lived long after and was not well informed that perhaps the real meaning is that they "elected" their Bishop only, not that they really ordained him, etc.) seem hardly worthy of serious consideration. The words of these men are too obvious, and the interpretation placed upon them by centuries of criticism too unanimous, to justify such objections. If the words of the great Church Father be "the witness of Jerome in a temper," the criticism thereon appears to be no less the explanation of Canon Gore in an embarrassing position. That both Jerome and Eutychius intended to say that Presbyters of the Church in Alexandria were accustomed to ordain their own Bishop, and that this was a regular custom for two hundred years or more, is a fact so obvious to the unbiassed reader, and so generally admitted by critics to-day (and, in fact, has been so generally admitted from the very beginning) that little more need be said on the subject.

Novatus. (C. 250.) Though a Presbyter only he ordained Felicissimus a Deacon, and though the act was bitterly censured by his Bishop, Cyprian,

I

because done without his knowledge and consent, the actual VALIDITY of the ordination was never called in question by Cyprian (who left no stone unturned in his controversy with Novatus) but on the contrary WAS RECOGNIZED BY HIM. Even Blunt admits this fact: "He (Cyprian) allowed Felicissimus to remain in office" (Dict. Sects, Heresies, etc., Art. "Novatians," note, p. 383). Again, we read: "His (Cyprian's) quarrel with Novatian was based to a great extent upon the fact that the latter, though only a Presbyter, had ignored Cyprian's claims as Bishop by ordaining Felicissimus as Deacon, Ep. 49 (52); Felicissimum satellitem suum diaconum nec permittente me nec sciente sua factione et ambitione constituit" (Dict. Chris. Antiq., Art. "Priest," p. 1703).

A.D. 300 ΤΟ 400.

2

Council of Ancyra. (314.) The 13th Canon of this Council by prohibiting Presbyters to ordain "without the permission of the Bishop in writing," clearly betrays two things, (a) That Presbyters had performed such ordinations previously, and (b) That they were even now not to be considered illegal, provided only they had the consent of the Bishop. In short, the Canon was not directed against the validity of such ordinations, but against the expediency of performing them apart from the knowledge and consent of the Bishop, as tending to overthrow order, unity, and authority in the Church. It is to be noted that it was just such an act as this that Cyprian complained of in the case of the ordination of Felicissimus by Novatus. He did not deny the validity of this Presbyterian ordination (for he allowed Felicissimus to remain in office), but he complained that it was done without his knowledge and consent ("nec permittente me nec sciente"). The Canon in question reads as follows: "The Chorepiscopi are not to be allowed to ordain Presbyters or Deacons, nor the Presbyters of a City, without the permission of the Bishop in writing, in another Parish" (Canon XIII.). Says Prof. Fisher, "Gradually in the Church, Ordination came to be the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop; but as late as the Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314), we find by the 13th Canon, that Presbyters, with the Bishop's consent,

I

The reference here to the "Chorepiscopi" ordaining brings up another interesting point, for while the matter has never been definitely settled there is good reason to believe that these were originally nothing more than Presbyters, and that, as such, they ordained and their ordinations were regarded valid. As in the case of these City Presbyters this privilege was in time withdrawn for motives of expediency only. For a list of those who hold this view, see Bingham's Antiquities.

may still ordain" (Begin. Christ., pp. 551 et seq.).

Epiphanius. (310-403.) Is said to have asserted the essential equality of Bishop and Presbyter (see Hatch, Organ. Early Chr. Churches, pp. 109, 110).

Hilary the Deacon. (Ambrose?) (4th Century.) Commenting on Ephesians iv., 2, this author writes as follows: "The Apostle calls Timothy, created by him a Presbyter, a Bishop (for the first Presbyters were called Bishops), that when he departed the one next to him might succeed him. Moreover, in Egypt the Presbyters (consignant) confirm (or establish), if a Bishop be not present." This witnesses the writer's belief in the original identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and evidently, in its allusion to the custom "in Egypt," refers to the Presbyterian ordinations attested by Jerome, Eutychius, and others which will be cited presently.

Ambrose. (340-397.) "Episcopi et Presbyteri una ordinatio est; uterque enim sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est" (Op., vol. ii., p. 295; cited in Dic. Chr. Antiq., Art. "Priest," p. 1703)-clear evidence that he regarded them as differing in Office only, not in Order.

"There is but one Ordination of a Bishop and of a Presbyter, for each of them is a Priest, but the Bishop is (or ranks) first." His meaning is precisely parallel to what might be said of Bishops and Archbishops to-day-viz: "There is but one Consecration of an Archbishop and of a Bishop (for each of them is a Bishop), but the Archbishop is (or ranks) first."