of the appointment and ordination of ministers.  “The bishop,” says this enactment, “is to be elected by all the people....  And they shall choose ONE OF THE BISHOPS AND ONE OF THE PRESBYTERS, ...  AND THESE SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS UPON HIS HEAD AND PRAY.” [586:4] Here, to avoid the confusion arising from a whole crowd of individuals imposing hands in ordination, two were selected to act on behalf of the assembled office-bearers; and, that the parties entitled to officiate might be fairly represented, the deputies were to be a bishop and a presbyter. [587:1] The canon illustrates the jealousy with which the presbyters in the early part of the third century still guarded some of their rights and privileges.  In the matter of investing others with Church authority, they yet maintained their original position, and though many bishops might be present when another was inducted into office, they would permit only one of the number to unite with one of themselves in the ceremony of ordination.  Some at the present day do not hesitate to assert that presbyters have no right whatever to ordain, but this canon supplies evidence that in the third century they were employed to ordain bishops.

It thus appears that the bishop of the ancient Church was very different from the dignitary now known by the same designation.  The primitive bishop had often but two or three elders, and sometimes a single deacon, [587:2] under his jurisdiction:  the modern prelate has frequently the oversight of several hundreds of ministers.  The ancient bishop, surrounded by his presbyters, preached ordinarily every Sabbath to his whole flock:  the modern bishop may spend an entire lifetime without addressing a single sermon, on the Lord’s day, to many who are under his episcopal supervision.  The early bishop had the care of a parish:  the modern bishop superintends a diocese.  The elders of the primitive bishop were not unfrequently decent tradesmen who earned their bread by the sweat of their brow:  [587:3] the presbyters of a modern prelate have generally each the charge of a congregation, and are supposed to be entirely devoted to sacred duties.  Even the ancient city bishop had but a faint resemblance to his modern namesake.  He was the most laborious city minister, and the chief preacher.  He commonly baptized all who were received into the Church, and dispensed the Eucharist to all the communicants.  He was, in fact, properly the minister of an overgrown parish who required several assistants to supply his lack of service.

The foregoing testimonies likewise shew that the doctrine of apostolical succession, as now commonly promulgated, is utterly destitute of any sound historical basis.  According to some, no one is duly qualified to preach and to dispense the sacraments whose authority has not been transmitted from the Twelve by an unbroken series of episcopal ordinations.  But it has been demonstrated that episcopal ordinations, properly so called, originated only in the third century, and that even the bishops of Rome, who flourished prior to that date, were “of the order of the presbytery.”  All the primitive bishops received nothing more than presbyterian ordination.  It is plain, therefore, that the doctrine of the transmission of spiritual power from the apostles through an unbroken series of episcopal ordinations flows from sheer ignorance of the actual constitution of the early Church.