A defence of diocesan episcopacy in answer to a book of Mr. David Clarkson, lately published, entituled, Primitive episcopacy / by Henry Maurice ...

CHAP. VI.

I Have followed the tract of Mr. Clerkson's discourse through Villages and Cities, from the smallest to the greatest, in search of Pri∣mitive Episcopacy; and must confess, that he has laboured hard, partly by diminishing of ancient Cities, and especially by lessening the Christians, to prove that no Bishop had in his City a greater flock for three or almost four Ages, than could assemble in one Church. How well he hath performed this undertaking, I dare not take upon me to say, being too far engaged in the dispute to be a Judge of his performance. Yet should all his Testimonies amount to a full evidence of the fact, that the

greatest Cities for so many Ages, had no more Christians than might joyn with the Bishop in one Assembly, he falls short of the main point, which is not, whether the Bishop had more Congregations than one in the place of his Residence, but whether in his whole Diocese he had no more. I know some Bishops who reside in places, that can scarce furnish a de∣cent Congregation, and yet have more than a hundred within their Diocese. And in some of our Cities I make no doubt, but the whole people, making common allowance for ne∣cessary Absents, might be contained within the walls of the Cathedral; yet this is but a small part of the Bishops flock. If therefore in ancient times, when Mr. Clerkson fancied there was another species of Episcopacy, the case was the same, or not very different; all the pains he has bestowed in the reduction of Cities into a single Congregation, and all the Earthquakes and Pestilences which he called to his assistance to lessen the number of the peo∣ple, might have been spared. What Country or Territory the ancient Bishops had besides the City where they lived, comes now under examination. And if it shall appear by te∣stimonies unexceptionable, that the ancient Cities had large Territories; and that these Territories were under the Bishop of the City; and that the people there were too numerous, and too far distant to be able to come to the Bishops Church; then I hope, we shall be no more troubled with this new way of measur∣ing ancient Bishopricks by the compass of the City wall. Here then lies the stress of the

Question concerning Primitive Episcopacy. And I cannot but observe, that Mr. Clerkson's diligence was not either so great in this part, or nothing could be found to give so much as a pretence to streighten the bounds of those Territories which were under the Bi∣shops Jurisdiction, no less than the City where he lived. Yet something he thinks fit to say to this point, which I am now to consider.

(a) It may be alledged, that not only the City and (but) a large Territory belonging to it, and the Villages therein made up the Bishops Diocese. Answ. If the Christians in the Villages—increas∣ed them—beyond the capacity of personal Commu∣nion, it must be in the greatest Cities, or else no where. The consequence is not very evident; for some very little Cities had great Territo∣ries, as Cyrus where Theodoret was Bishop; of which more anon. And Capua, that was a very great City, had(b) once no Terri∣tory at all, as it happened to some other Ci∣ties in Italy, whose Territories the Romans took away. However let us hear how it was. It was not so at Carthage, where all the People belonging to Cyprian, met frequently; which is plain by a hundred passages in his Epistles. What, all the people from the Country Parishes? The Reader may depend upon it, that there is not the least title either in the Epistles, or any Tract of Cyprian to that purpose: And those

passages that he refers to, are only general expressions, all the people, all the Brotherhood, &c. which have been already considered. Nor can it be conceived possible; for though we have not the measure of all the region belong∣ing to Carthage, yet are there some hints that are sufficient to disprove this. A place ten miles distant from that City, was reckoned(c) not only in the Territory, but in the Suburbs of it; and from the distance was called Deci∣mum. And it is not very likely, if there were any Christians there, that they were ob∣liged to go to Carthage upon all Religious oc∣casions. And that at this time, the places that went under the name of Suburbs, and were at some distance from the City, had their Assem∣blies apart from the City Bishop to whom they belonged, we may learn from the Testimony of Dionysius(d) Bishop of Alexandria, and the note of Valesius,(e) that the people who dwelled in remoter Suburbs, were not obliged to go to the great Church, i. e. of the City. And Bethlehem, which was but six miles from Jerusalem, and belonged to the Bishop of that City, did not go up to the Bishops Church so much as at Easter; as we are informed by Jerom,(f) who on that feast did once pre∣sent some Candidates for Baptism to the Pres∣byters

of that place. Yea in the fourth Age it was not so in Alexandria, as our Author(g) fancies; and refers us to that panegyrical As∣sembly, which Athanasius excuses to Constan∣tius. What, all the Christians of the Diocese of Alexandria in that Church? Those of(h) Ni∣copolis equal to a City? Those of(i) Canopus reckoned it self a City, and twelve miles from Alexandria, and within that Diocese? What all the people of Mareotes?(l) where there were fourteen Parish-Presbyters and thirteen Deacons. These had some ten Villages, some more within their respective Parishes; so that we may reckon upon near a hundred Villages at least in this place. It is very strange, that all these places added as an Appendix to the Christians of Alexandria, should not make more than one Congregation; or that those people should travel so far to assemble with their Bishop, when they could not promise themselves any room, the City Churches be∣ing small, and the great one not yet dedicated; especially since we have shewed before, that they were not obliged to it. I am afraid, if the notion which our Author served, had required that all the Christians in Egypt should have been no more than could have met in one Assembly, that he would have found some

Panegyrical Assembly should have comprehend∣ed them all.

He tells us how he had shewed before, that the Christians in such Cities were no more in the first Ages than the Inhabitants of an ordinary Town, such as some of our Market-Towns; when we know, that not only those of the Town, but many Villages (sometimes near twenty) belonging to it, can and do meet together. All he has shewed hath been examined: And this which he adds of his own knowledge, concerning Market-Towns with twenty Villages belonging to them, I will take upon his credit, though I think such instances very rare. Yet after all, this will not reach the point in question, nor answer the Territories of ancient Cities, which were much larger than Mr. Clerkson would have us believe they were. Not content with this, he thinks it advisable to add something for more satisfaction.

(m) For first, either the Territory was little, and so it was indeed for the most part. There are some will have it taken for granted, that the Ter∣ritories of Cities were very large,—and they had need presume it to be exceeding large, so as it may bear some proportion to a Northern Diocese. I do not desire to have a thing taken for granted which I can so easily prove, and hope to do so effectually in this matter, that there will be no place left for exception or cavil; and I do not doubt, but some Territories of ancient Cities will appear not inferiour to some of

the Nothern Dioceses, and to the generality of the Bishopricks of this kingdom, which are not the least in this part of the world.(n) The Circuit of one of our Country Parishes (yea of two together) they will scorn as unworthy the repute or name of a Bishops Diocese; yet the Terri∣tories of the Cities where the Apostles planted Churches—amounted not to more, if so much. God forbid any should scorn those bounds, which were set by the Apostles and first plan∣ters of Christianity. Yet those, upon whom Mr. Clerkson reflects, have reason to scorn so undeserved an Imputation. Some men are not well, unless they can reproach their betters; their choler works upward and must be vented at their mouth, or else they cannot live. But the present Question is, how far those bounds extended, that were set by the Apostles and their Successours.

(o) Shall we take an estimate of the Territory of other Cities, by that of the Levites Cities? Why not? since many of them were Royal Cities, and may be supposed to have the largest allowance. There are many reasons, why this estimate ought not to be taken, of which I cannot think our Author ignorant. First, the Levites had another sort of Inheritance among their Brethren, that is, the Tythes; and for that reason they may be reasonably supposed to have a shorter Territory. And the use, for which those Suburbs were given the Levites, shew that it needed not to be as large as those of

the Cities of other Tribes; for they were given them only(p) for their Cattle, this Tribe hav∣ing no Tillage, because it received the Tythes of the rest of Israel. Besides, not only the Cities of the Levites, but those of the other Tribes, are very improper instances in this question. For the Age of Moses is so distant from that of Christ, and the circumstances of the world so different; that no estimate can be taken of one by the other. The Cities, which the children of Israel divided between the Tribes, when they possessed themselves of Canaan, were above twenty times as many as they had under that title in our Saviour's time. For in Moses his time it seems every small Town passed for a City; but in that of our Saviour it was otherwise. And as the Cities were then greater, and less numerous, so was their Territory proportionably more large; at leastwise in the sense of the present Question. That some Cities of the Levites were Royal, is not to the purpose; for if they were all to have the same measure of Suburbs, according to that Agrarian Law of Moses,(q) of two thousand Cubits on each side, it can signifie nothing that once they had been Royal Cities; for then their Suburbs might not have the same bounds, as they had afterward when they became the possession of the Levites. How small a Territory the City Tyre might have when Mr. Sands was there, belongs not at all to our Question, which is

put much higher, concerning the general use of ancient times. But in truth, Mr Sands says not that the Territories of Tyre extended no farther than six miles in length and two in breadth; but only that when he was in those parts, the Emir of Sidon had given it with so much of the adjacent Country to his Bro∣ther.

(r) Or shall we be determined by Crete, the place whether the Text insisted on for this purpose leads us? I am content; so our Author do not confound the Fables of Homer with the History of St. Paul. But here again he talks of his hundred Cities; and then certainly the Territory of each must be very small. But this hath been so often an∣swered, that I am afraid to venture upon ano∣ther repetition. This Island is computed by some old Authors in Strabo,(s) who are com∣mended for exactness, to be three hundred miles long, and about fifty broad; and those(t) who say the least, want but thirty miles of this reckoning: And about the time of the Council of Chalcedon, all the Island had but eight Bishops. In latter times Volateran reck∣ons ten, and Cluverius but nine. For the hun∣dred Cities, I can only say with Solinus,(u) that they were prodigal of their language, who speak of so many in Crete.

(x) If we go farther, where Cities were not great, the Territory was not large, these being— commonly proportionable. This was no rule, as we shall shew by several instances; and our Author could not but know of one. For An∣tioch upon Maeander, which he brings as an in∣stance of a mean City, is in that very place which he cites, said(y) to have a great Ter∣ritory on both sides of the River.(z) Nor could it be large, where Cities were numerous, and stood near together;— no room there for a Terri∣tory. It was seldom that Cities stood so close, but there was room for such a Territory, that the people required distinct Congregations, and could not with any convenience repair to the City Church. And it will appear even from those Countries, where Cities stood thickest, that the Bishops were Diocesan. Laodicea, he observes,(a) and Hierapolis, both Metropoles, are but six miles distant; nor can it be thought their Territory was large other ways: for there were other Cities, which must have their Territories too, nearer them any way than they were to one ano∣ther. Our Author is here more liberal of his assertion than proof; and about matters at so great a distance one cannot be blamed as too scrupulous, if he require some competent Te∣stimony.

(b) But we need go no farther for satisfaction than the notion of a Territory, as it is universally agreed on. With all my heart: For if the no∣tation of the word, or the definition of the thing, be sufficient to give satisfaction; I shall be very willing to wave the trouble of survey∣ing the Country, or turning over the Terriers of every particular City. Pomponius so defines it; Territorium est Ʋniversitas agrorum intra fines cujusque Civitatis, intra quos, prout ait Siculus Flaccus, jurisdicendi jus erat. And it was called a Territory, because the Magistrate within those bounds had a jus terrendi, i. e. summovendi. And those Magistrates were punishable, who exercised any Jurisdiction, or used the ensigns of their authority beyond the limits of the Territory of their Cities. So far it is very well. But it does not yet satisfie us about the main Question, how large these Territories usually were. Now therefore our Author be∣gins to infer: by which it appears, the Territory reached no farther than the Jurisdiction of the City Magistrates. This is allowed; but how far that was, is still the Question.

At last he draws to the point. How many Cities can be shewed us in the Roman Empire, where the Jurisdiction reached further than it doth in our Cities? When shall we see any proof, that ordinarily it was of more extent? With us it is known to be commonly of no more extent, than the circuit of one of our Country Parishes. How much farther does the authority of the Mayor of Lincoln or Win∣chester

or Canterbury reach? No more is their Territory. Alas, after all our reading and quoting of Greek and Latin Authors, are we come to demand a proof, that the Territories of Greek and Roman Cities were larger than those of ours? I cannot believe Mr. Clerkson so ignorant of a matter so obvious in almost all the Authors he quotes. But perhaps he might be willing, that others should fancy of this matter, not as it really was, but so as might be most advantagious to the Congregational notion. Now since he requires proof of a thing so plain; I will comply with the impor∣tunity, though to the learned Reader it may not seem so necessary. I will begin with Ama∣sea, the City of Strabo, who may be allowed as a competent witness for the measure of the Territory of his own Town. Then follows my Country, says the Geographer,(c) the Ter∣ritory of Amasia, the best and the greatest of all Territories. And we cannot wonder at such ex∣pressions, when we hear the particulars. From the River, says he, begins a Vally something nar∣row at first, and then opens and grows wider,(d) which makes up that field, that has its name from a thousand Villages. And this is not all; but he names other Regions beyond this, belong∣ing to the same City, as far as the River

Halys: all this on the North side; and the length of the Territory that way, was five hun∣dred furlongs, which makes above sixty miles. Another way it is(a) longer, and reaches to Babanomus and Ximene, which likewise reaches to Halys. This, says he, is the length of it, the breadth is from North to South; but he does not express the measure any otherwise than from the City Northward; which he reckons 500 Stadia. I hope this Territory is of great∣er extent, than my Lord Mayor's Liberties, and goes something farther than from New∣gate to Holborn Bars. Nor do I believe the Mayor of Lincoln or Canterbury will vye with this City for extent of Jurisdiction.

Cyzicus, though a greater City than Amasea, had a less Territory: yet such it was, that it does not seem inferiour for extent, to many of our Bishopricks. It was seated in an Island of the same name, which belonged to it, which was five hundred furlongs in com∣pass. Yet besides this(b) it had a great Territory, partly ancient, and part acquired by their service in the Roman wars: that part of Troas that was beyond the river Asopus, and the Country about Zeleia, and the Plain of Adrasteia, and part of the Country about the lake of Dascelis.

Antioch had(c) a great Country belonging to it, and many Villages that were equal to Cities. How great a Country does it possess, says Libanius, when several Villages belonging to it, are greater and more populous than many Cities? Daphne remains in the condition of a Suburb; yet if it vye with Cities, it would surpass them upon many accounts. Nor is it without reason, that Libanius mag∣nifies the Territory of Antioch; for it(d) reached on one side to the Region of Cyrrus, which was two days journy, or fifty miles di∣stant; and perhaps it might reach as far on other sides, excepting that towards the Sea, which according to Libanius(e) was but fif∣teen miles from the City. Theodoret mentions many Monks, who lived in several parts of the Region of Antioch. Asterius, who lived in the Country about Gindarus, which was(f) a very great Village, and belonged to Antioch, though in older times it had belonged to the region of Cyrrus, and is called a City by Strabo.(g) The same Author(h) mentions one Simeon, who is said to have wrought a miracle in some

Village near the Mountain Amanus, which did not only fill all the neighbourhood of that place with fear and astonishment, but the whole City likewise; I mean, says he, Antioch, for that place belonged to it: so that by this Ex∣pression we cannot judge it to be very near.

Beotia was five hundred furlongs or sixty two miles in length, and about four and thirty miles in breadth, according to Di∣caearchus;(i) yet since Epaminondas his time, it was all but the territory of Thebes. Attica was a great Country, and(l) all of it the territory of Athens ever since Theseus his time. Lacedaemon(m) had a territory sufficient to main∣tain thirty thousand foot, and fifteen hundred horse. All Arcadia was but the territory of Megalopolis. And Elis, tho' no great City, had so large a Country belonging to it, that many Country Families for several generati∣ons did never see the City to which they be∣longed; which Polybius ascribes partly(n) to the largeness of the region, partly to the simplicity of their manners. Miletus, when it was taken by the Persians, had a large Country belonging to it,(o) which the Con∣querors divided; that part that was near the

City, the Persians took to themselves; that which was remote, they gave the people of Pedasa. And after this, the Region belonging to that City received great accession of territo∣ry, when(p) all the small neighbouring Colonies of the Milesians in Aeolis and Troas and a∣bout the Hellespont, leaving their own small Cities, went and setled at Miletus, and in∣creased the dependencies of that City by the addition of their several regions. The terri∣tory of Byzantium joyned to that of Perinthus, and was therefore added to that City by Se∣verus;(q) yet these two Cities are above three∣score miles distant one from the other, as we find in Antonius's Itinerary: which as to this di∣stance agrees exactly with the Itinerary of Jerusa∣lem. Caelenae, or Apamea in Phrygia, is commended by Dio(r) for the many Towns that belonged to it, which wanted nothing of Cities but the Title: and Apamia in Syria appears yet more considerable for its territory, as it is described by Strabo.(s) It has a very great and fertile Region belonging to it, and pa∣stures for cattle of prodigious extent. Many

Towns, that had been accounted Cities, were but in the nature of Villages to this City. Se∣coana(t) was a fortress in this territory, where Tryphon the Tyrant was born. Larissa,(u) and several other great places, that Strabo names, were but the dependencies of Apamea. In this Country Seleucus Nicator kept five hundred Elephants and a great part of his Army. Here the succeeding Kings kept their Studds, and had thirty thousand Mares in this region for Breed. These were Greek Cities and Colonies. We will in the next place give some instan∣ces of the Roman, and compare their ter∣ritories with the Liberties of our English Cities.

The territory of Cremona was divided be∣tween the Veterans, sent thither by Augustus; and not being sufficient for the number,(x) Octavianus Musca, who had the ordering of that Colonie, took fifteen miles from the terri∣tory of Mantua, which suffered not for any offence of its own, but only by an unfor∣tunate neighbourhood, Mantua vae miserae ni∣mium vicina Cremonae. Nor was this all that belonged to it; for Alphenus Varus the Sur∣veyour had order to leave the City three miles

on every side, to be measured from the wall; which he is said(y) to observe with such a malicious exactness, that he took near a mile of water with which the City was encompas∣sed into the reckoning, as he is reproached by one Cornelius. So we have a territory of above twenty miles belonging to an ordinary Town. And even that small part that remained, is much more than what belongs to our Cities; and less than this, they did not usually leave,(z) when they thought fit to punish any Town by depriving it of its Region. Such a poor remnant was left to Ameria upon the like occasion; for Caesars law operated not within three miles of the City, as we learn from Claudius his Commentaries. Mantua was but a small place, and much inferior to Cremona, which was a great Colonie long before this calamity, and in all likelyhood had a much longer territory than Mantua. We have had occasion to speak of that place before, about the number of Roman Colonies sent thither, which Mr. Clerkson disparages because it was no more than six thousand: Whereas it must be no ordinary territory, that will serve such a number, according to the usual proportion of distributing the territory of a Colony. For

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

every one of those Planters had a porti∣on of Land allotted them, and were as so many free-holders among us; and we may take a certain estimate of the Regions belonging to such Roman Plantations from such instances of Agrarian distribution, which happen to be pre∣served.

Bononia was a Roman Colony, and those who were first sent thither(a) were but three thousand: yet the territory divided between them was very great, as will appear from the lots of each Soldier. Every Foot-man had fifty Acres, every Horse-man seventy: but reckon∣ning all as Foot, there will arise a summ of a hundred and fifty thousand Acres, which alone would be a Country equal to many of our Counties. And when you have added the publick estate, which always had a conside∣rable portion on these occasions, the Officers, who had always double to the common Sol∣diers, besides the wasts and unprofitable Land which must be supposed within such a com∣pass; such a territory will vye with our great∣er Counties. Thureum had(b) three thou∣sand Foot and three hundred Horse sent to it as a Colony; the Foot-men had forty Acres a piece, the Horse-men double; which comes little short of the reckoning of Bononia. This

indeed was thought too much for the number of people, and therefore a third part was taken off; yet still the territory was very large. The Veterans, who had served Scipio Africanus, were drawn(c) to Venusia, which had a great Territory, but had been dispeopled in the Wars of Hannibal; the Soldiers had each two Acres for every year they had served in those Wars. But the greatest yet is that of Aquileia,(d) whither three thousand Foot and three hundred Horse-men were sent for a Colony. The Foot had fifty Acres each, the Centuri∣ons double, the Horse-men seven-score. In more remote Provinces the Territories of their Colonies seem to be yet larger, there was more Land to spare: and(e) when they first plant∣ed in a Conquered Country, they did not only take in so much of the Country, as that new Colony could use, but according to their hopes of future increase. The Colonies of Julius and Augustus, who had a great number of Legions to provide for after the Civil Wars were ended, seemed to surpass the rest. The one peopled Carthage and Corinth, and seve∣ral other places of principal reputation abroad, besides the Cities of Italy; the other threw in all Achaia in a manner, for a territory of Patrae, and many places that were Cities, and

were memorable in story for considerable actions, he drew into his new City. The Territory of it was above forty miles long, as we may gather from the description of(f) Pausanias. Nicopolis(g) had the same fortune, and a great number of the neighbouring Cities, and all that belonged to them made up but the Territory of that City. In Gaule, Nismes was remarkable for Territory and the extent of her jurisdiction, and upon that ac∣count is(h) preferred to Narbo. It had, as Strabo takes notice, four and twenty Villages: which sounds something oddly, as if the Ter∣ritory of Narbo, the chief of that Country, had not so many Villages under it, or as if it were an extraordinary thing. But the word, which is translated Village, had a pecu∣liar signification in that Country, as Caesar(i) informs us. The whole Community or Country of the Helvetians, says he, was divided in qua∣tuor Pagos, and one such division as this within the memory of our Fathers, killed L. Cassius the Roman Consul, and put his Army under the yoke. And the same Pagus, which was the people of Zurich, Caesar had the fortune to defeat the

first of all the Helvetians; so that four and twenty of these divisions must be accounted very extraordinary, since so great a Country as Helvetia had but four. Du Chesne therefore renders the word, not Villages, but Communi∣ties. The Hundreds, into which our Counties are divided, may in some measure express it; which are usually named from some Village that might be the chief of the division, when it was first made. To conclude, Zela in Pontus was enlarged(l) by Pompey, by the accession of several Towns which he drew into it, and to make this City compleat, he added many Prefectures to its Territory.

I know it is a thing of ill same to put questions to the Dead; and therefore I will not so much as return those demands of Mr. Clerk∣son, that call for proof of one of the plainest things in the World: That(m) the Jurisdicti∣on of the Roman and Greek Cities reached farther than that of ours, unless there may be a new scruple about the City Officers having authority over the Territory; which I think can scarce happen to a Man that has read a Latin Author.

Nor is it evident only from a few Instances, that some ancient Cities had large Territories;

but the largeness of it is implyed in the word it self: For as Aristotle observes of a City, that the very name signifies a competence of mea∣sure; so is it in respect of the Territory that appertains to it. By Ager, which is the usu∣al word for Territory, We understand, says St. Augustin,(n) not only Castles, or Burgs, but Municipia, or Corporation Towns, and Colonies without the City, which is the head and as it were the Mother of the rest. And the old Glosse(o) renders it by the Land of a Colony. And who∣ever reads the(p) Agrarian Writers, will soon perceive, though they speak only in the general, that it is not a Parish or a few Vil∣lages they are dividing. When Justinian di∣vided Aquae in Dacia Ripensi, from Meridianum, he allows(q) the Bishop of Aquae not only his City, but all the Castles or Burgs and Ter∣ritories and Churches, that belonged to it. One would not easily imagin, this to be the descrip∣tion of one of our Country Parishes. And Plato and Aristotle(r) as oft as they mention what Territory is to be allowed, require it

should be not only sufficient for all the Inhabi∣tants, but that it should answer all publick occa∣sions of peace and war, and yield the Citizens such a competence, that they might live at their ease. For he forbids his Citizens to meddle with the plow; but to leave(s) that to be done by servants or Country people. Nor were the proper parts of his City of Artizans neither; but of Soldiers and Magistrates, and such as were proper for Council. And these being in his supposition to be numerous, were to be supported from their estates in the Ter∣ritory of the place, which therefore must be supposed of great extent. In short, the gene∣ral notion of the thing does not admit the narrowness of Mr. Clerkson's conceit; and the word it self speaks something that is propor∣tionable to the greatness and distinction of a City.

The difference between the constitution of ancient Cities, and those of later ages in this part of the world will appear; if we consider first, that they were greater communities, not confined within the walls of one Town, but stretched over all the adjacent Country. For the Jurisdiction of the City Magistrate reached as far as the community; for the City was the head and supream part of it, all the Magi∣strates within the Territory being subordi∣nate. Nor was this all, but(s) the Citi∣zens

were proprietors of that Territory, who commonly lived in the City, and left the Vil∣lages to their Slaves, or to such Country peo∣ple that were in the nature of Tenants under a servile Tenure. The title was in the City, though particular Citizens had the possession; nor could any, as I think, have a right to pos∣sess any estate in that Territory, who was not first free of the City. The greater Villages, which answer our Burroughs, had Magistrates of their own, but subordinate to those of the City, and generally chose by the City; as Frontinus(t) informs us; and I think I have observed already upon another occasion. And lastly the ancient Cities were greater in their design, which was generally military; and there was scarce any so mean, that had not some provision for war. The Greek Colo∣nies in the midst of barbarous Nations, were like so many Camps; and the Romans filled all their conquests with Cities of their own people, with a design of securing the Coun∣tries they had subdued. Now as it is natural to all things to beget after their own likeness; so the Greeks and Romans did in this respect. For Greece consisting of many Cities inde∣pendent, propagated their kind, as far as their Arms or their Ships carried them. And Rome from a small City, becoming mistress of a great part of the world, planted every where little models of it self; and shared the world between its Colonies, as so many children.

And where they could not fill all the Country, they preserved such Cities as they found, and every where encouraged the people by their example, to form themselves into such com∣munities. So that generally speaking, all the Roman dominion was parcelled out into Cities and Territories that belonged to them; whole Provinces were effectually represented by the Deputies of the Cities of it. And though in some places there might be exempts, yet in general thus the Roman Dominion was di∣gested.

Upon this constitution Christianity was superinduced, and the Churches of Christ be∣ing so many communities, and having some resemblance to Cities, so far as to take their name from the civil assemblies, grew up ac∣cording to the shape of those civil communi∣ties in which they were planted, and had the same common bounds and measure with them. So that when the whole lump was leavened, and all the people were reduced to the obe∣dience of faith; the Church and the City in respect of their matter were the same. The rules indeed and the ends of the City of man and the City of God, were very different, and stood as wide asunder, as Heaven is from the Earth; but the same people were both the Citizens and the Christians. The Church and the City had one and the same Territory; and as far as the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate reached, so far was the Diocese of the Bishop extended. Our Saviour having left no rule about limits, the Apostles made no new di∣stributions, but followed the form of the

Empire, planting in every City a compleat and entire Church, that consisted not only of the Inhabitants of the City, but of the Region belonging to it. If any were converted, and if their distance or number made them inca∣pable of repairing to the City-Church upon all their Religious occasions, they had Congre∣gations apart, and subordinate Officers to at∣tend them, as it was in the civil disposition; our Saviour having appointed several Orders in his Church, and the Apostles propagating those, and appointing some new, as occasion required. Only, as in greater causes, the Coun∣try people sued in the City Courts; so like∣wise in such causes of Religion, that concerned the whole community, such as that of receiv∣ing in, and turning out of the communion, the Christians of the Territory were under the authority of the City-Church. Hence it is, that the Canons of ancient Councils men∣tion a Territory belonging to every City Bi∣shop. The thirty fourth Canon(u) of those called Apostolick, forbids a Bishop to do any thing without the concurrence of his Metro∣politan, but what related to his own Diocese, and the Territories under it. And the ninth of Nice, that provides so favourably for the Pu∣ritans when they should return to the commu∣nion of the Church, supposeth Bishops to have a considerable Diocese besides their City. For by this it is ordered, that if a Bishop of the

Puritans should embrace Catholick Communion, and there were another Bishop of the Catholick Church in the same City, that then(x) the Puritan should either retain the title of a Bi∣shop in the same City, if the other did think fit, or else be received as a Presbyter. But least this may have the appearance of two Bishops in the same Town; some place is to be provided for him, that he may be either a Chorepiscopus, or a Presbyter in the Country. The Synod of Antioch forbids the Presbyters of the Territories to send Canonical letters; and in another, gives the Bishop of the City full authority(y) to order Ecclesiastical af∣fairs, not only in his City, but in the whole Territory that belongs to it, to ordain Pres∣byters and Deacons, to exercise Jurisdiction, within the extent of his Diocese. And in the next Canon forbids,(z) the Chorepiscopi to ordain Presbyters or Deacons in the Country, without the consent of the Bishop of the City, to which they and the Territory did belong. The Council of Elvira speaks of Deacons(a) that had Country cures, and that the Bishop, to whom they belonged, was to perfect those who were baptized by these Curees, by confirmation.

Basil(b) salutes the Country Clergy of the Diocese of Nicopolis distinct from those of the City; and Theodoret who had a Diocese forty miles square, reckoned(c) his Episcopacy of divine institution, and that his large Terri∣tory as well as his City, was committed into his hands by God. Theodosius Bishop of Synnada is said to drive the Macedonian Hereticks not only out of his City, but(d) out of all his Territories. And Eustathius(e) overthrew all the Altars of Basilides in all the Territory of Gangrae. And Synesius writing to the whole Church of Ptolemais, addresseth to the people of the City, and to those of the Country Parishes that belonged to it. It would be an endless labour to alledge all the instances of this nature; since nothing is more obvious and occurs more frequently in Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters.

I have shewed how great Territories be∣longed anciently to the Greek and Roman Ci∣ties; how unlike their constitution was to ours, and especially in this respect: I have also shew∣ed, that the civil and Ecclesiastical Territories were the same; and Mr. Clerkson confesses it. His demands therefore concerning this matter receive a full answer; and the proof which he (f)

required not without intimation of despair, made good, and beyond all reasonable ex∣ception.

To make this matter yet more clear, I will instance in some Bishopricks whose extent are known, or so much at leastwise, as dis∣covers them to be Dioceses consisting of many Country Parishes, besides the City Churches. I will begin with the Bishoprick of Theodoret, because the limits of it have been described with greatest exactness and particularity. The Diocese of Cyrus was forty miles in length, and as much in breadth: And Theodoret(h) proceeds to describe it so minutely, that he sets down the number of acres, together with the condition and tenure of the land. There were fifty thousand free from any service, ten thousand belonging to the Fisc, about fifteen thousand more subject to taxes, but unable to pay according to the proportion then set. So that this instance seems clear beyond all ex∣ception. And as to the Ecclesiastical state of this Territory, in his Epistle to Leo he says,(i) there were eight hundred Churches in it, all belonging to his care. Yet some have en∣deavoured to take off the evidence of this Epistle to Leo, when it was urged by the learn∣ed Bishop of Worcester. Mr. Baxter suspects it, because it came from the Vatican Library; and Mr. Clerkson(l) suggests the same suspi∣tion. But this frivolous cavil hath been an∣swered

by the same hand that alledged the in∣stance.

I will take the liberty to add only this, that it happens fortunately to this Epistle, that it hath an ancient voucher, and a clear testimony in the next age after it was written. For Liberatus(m) makes mention of it, and in∣forms us, that Theodoret wrote to Leo, suggest∣ing how much he had suffered of Dioscorus, and desiring, that for the remedy of these evils another Council might be called. And(n) Garnerius in his observation upon this place, directs us to this Epistle to Leo. Mr. Clerkson instead of eight hundred Churches, constantly reads eighty, without so much as giving no∣tice, that it is only his conjecture. But be the number how it will, we must lay aside all thoughts of Congregational Episcopacy in this Region.

Another exception against this instance is offered by Mr. Clerkson,(o) that this was not a Diocese, but a Province; and that Theodoret was a Metropolitan. And for this he quotes the learned Author, whose testimonies he pre∣tended to answer; although he expresly says, that this is not to be understood of the Pro∣vince but of the Diocese of Theodoret. The truth is, Cyrus was no Metropolis, nor was Theodoret Primate of the Province, but under a

Metropolitan, as he affirms in one of his Epistles: They sent, says he,(p) letters of sum∣mons, as to other Metropolitans, so likewise to ours. And this was Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, the Metropolis of Euphratesia, who subscribes among the Metropolitans in the Oriental Synod(q) in Ephesus. In those subscriptions all the Metropolitans have their quality marked, and Theodoret subscribes as a simple Bishop. Stephen the successour of Alexander, subscribes in the Synod of Constantinople under Gennadius, as Metropolitan of the Province of Euphratesia: as I find in a Manuscript of the Bodley Libra∣ry. For the subscriptions of that Council are wanting in all editions: and in that Manuscript there are but thirty four names, whereas seven∣ty three Bishops are said to be present; and the same person is a subscriber to the Council of Chalcedon. Theodoret(r) does acknowledge Alexander for his Metropolitan, in several of the Epistles published by Lupus and Garnerius; and sends to him to appoint where the Bishops of his Province shall meet; and an assembly of the Bishops of that Province make a profession of acquiescing in what he should propound; and that they would observe him as their common

Father and their Lord. And Andreas Bishop of Samosata, speaking in the name of his Bre∣thren of the Province, owns(s) him as their head, and that he had in all things a prehemi∣nence. Long before this, Hierapolis is named as the head of Commagena or Euphratesia; for it is the same Province, as Ammianus Marcelli∣nus(t) observes. In the Council of Chalce∣don, Theodoret was no Metropolitan; as appears by his subscription(u) in the middle of the Bishops of the Province, of whom the greater part were present. So that this fancy of Mr. Clerkson, that the passage of Theodoret in his Epistle to Leo, is to be understood of his Province and not of his Diocese, appears evi∣dently to be destitute of all foundation. Cyrus was indeed called Hagiopolis in later times; but the Province never bore that name, as it seems to do in the Greek Notitia of Car. a S. Paulo: but the word was removed by the negligence of Copists from the City to the Province, the City being in the Manuscript Copy, as well as Print, placed at the top of a column, and having two names, one of them was set higher than the line of the column, and so joyned to the title of the Province. But in that Notitia, as well as in the description(x) of the Empire by Hierocles, Cyrrus is placed under Hierapolis.

In succeeding times indeed it came to be an Arch-Bishoprick; but Honorary only and with∣out any Suffragans, as several other Cities of the same Province did.

The next instance shall be the Diocese of St. Augustin; who mentions a Castle called Fussala, with a Territory belonging to it, for∣ty miles from Hippo Regius; which never had a Bishop of its own, but belonged to the Dio∣cese of Hippo. Against this clear testimony, Mr. Clerkson(y) hath offered some exceptions, which I shall examine. St. Austin, says he, signifies plainly, that there were more Bishops in the Territory of Hippo, when(z) he moved Janua∣rius the Primate of the Donatists, that they would meet together with the Catholick Bishops that were in the Territory. Although it should be granted, that there were several Bishops in that Region; yet does not this make St. Austin's Diocese less than forty miles in length; since he affirms(a) expresly, that this Fussala belonged to the Diocese of the Church of Hippo; and it is very unlikely that there were other Dioceses be∣tween: so that the Territory of Hippo on that side, must belong to the Bishop of the City. This exception then cannot impeach that testi∣mony of St. Austin concerning the extent of his Bishoprick; for it might be so long one

way, allowing more Bishops to be in the Regi∣on. But after all, this passage alledged by Mr. Clerkson does not prove, that the Region of Hippo had any more Bishops than St. Augustin; for the Bishops mentioned to be in that Ter∣ritory, were the Bishops of the Province, who were at that time met there, as they had done before.(b) A Council being assembled, it was ordered you should be summoned to appear: and again from the Council our Bishops sent to the Em∣perour. The Donatists are intreated to meet the Catholick Bishops, which before they neg∣lected to do; who being now assembled there again, the Schismaticks are urged to come to a conference with them. So that these Bishops were not in the Region of Hippo, as in the place of their Residence, but as in a place of Sy∣nodical meeting.

He excepts(c) likewise against Mutugenna, which was produced as an instance of a Coun∣try Parish in the Diocese of Hippo; because he finds a place of the same name to have two Bishops at the Conference of Carthage; as though there might not be two places in Africk of a name; whereas that Village, of which St. Austin speaks, is expresly challenged by him as belonging to his care, and so had no other Bishop.

Another suggestion he offers against St. Au∣gustin's being Bishop of the Region of Hippo, because he does not say to Caecilian the President, that he was Bishop of that Diocese (which the Dr. represents as a Region of large extent) but only that he had the Episcopal charge of Hippo. And was that Father obliged to reckon up all his Parishes to that President? Or did not his being Bishop of Hippo, suppose him likewise Bishop of all the Diocese belonging to it? Or because he does not mention his Territory to this Person, therefore he does not say upon any occasion, that he was Bishop of the Diocese? If he was Bishop of the Church of Hippo, he was so consequently of all the Region appertaining to that Church. And that there were Regions belonging to it, he says plain enough, though not to Caecilian, yet to another Magistrate. This will be most advantagious to the Catholick Church, says that holy Bishop;(d) (d) or that I may not seem to pass the bounds of my own dispensation, this will be most advantagious to the Church of the Diocese of Hippo. And speaking of a place called Ger∣manicia in that Diocese, affirms, (e) that it belongs to his care; and in another place, that(f) he had Churches under his care which he was obliged to visit.

To diminish this Bishoprick of Hippo yet farther, Mr. Clerkson shews, that St. Austin was so far from having all the Region under his Jurisdiction, that he had not the whole Town; the Donatists had a Bishop there. This indeed is true of the former part of St. Augustin's Episcopal administration: but after the Im∣perial Rescript, which followed the Conference at Carthage, Hippo had no Donatists; for all returned to the communion of the Church. For so I think, St. Austin in his Epistle to Vin∣centius may most commodiously be understood; where speaking of his former opinion, which was against using any compulsion for reducing men to the communion of the Church, he con∣fesseth, that experience hath altered his judg∣ment in that point.(g) The instance of my own City was urged against me, which was once wholly Donatist, but now converted to Catholick unity by the fear of the Imperial Laws, which now so utterly detests your pernicious animosity, that she might seem never to have been infected with it. So that after all these exceptions, St. Austin's Diocese remains undiminished.

Caesarea in Cappadocia had a Diocese of so vast extent, that few of our Northern Bishop∣ricks can equal it. For Basil the Bishop of that City, had(h) fifty Chorepiscopi in his Diocese, who were his deputies for the administration of discipline in lesser causes in the remoter part of

his Diocese. Cappadocia was(i) about four hundred miles in length according to Strabo, and above two hundred in breadth. Caesarea was placed in the middle of this great Coun∣try, and was at first the Metropolis of the whole; and when the Country was divided into two Provinces, the greatest share remained under the ancient and greatest Metropolis. Yet in this tract, which cannot be conceived less than two hundred and fifty miles, there were but(l) two Bishopricks, besides that of Caesarea, i. e. Thermae and Nyssa. Basil(m) excuses himself to Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, for not writing to him, by some great Per∣sons, who had been in Caesarea; because he was then upon his visitation. And in another place speaks of a Country Parish of his Dio∣cese, called Venesa, where he ordained one Glycerius a Deacon, to assist(n) the Presbyter of that Parish. And he reproves the Chorepiscopi of his Diocese, for suffering the Presbyters of Country Parishes to make what inferiour Church-officers they pleased; and therefore orders(o) a list of all the inferiour Officers of Country Churches to be brought to him, and that none be made thereafter without his consent. There is likewise another Village called Dacora, mentioned by Sozomen(p) in the

Territory of Caesarea, where Eunomius(q) was born and buried; and Julian ordered(r) a search to be made for all the goods, not only of the Churches in Caesarea, but of all the Churches of the Diocese.

Tyana, the Metropolis of the second Cap∣padocia, had a considerable Diocese belonging to it. Euphrantas Bishop of that City men∣tions(s) one George of Pasa, who lived in Gregory Nazianzen's time; and notes, that Pasa was a Country place twelve miles from Tyana, and belongs to that City, says he, to this very day. But this Diocese must be much more con∣siderable than this passage speaks, as well as the rest of Cappadocia. The whole Country, as I noted before, was about four hundred miles in length, and two in breadth, which makes a summ of eight hundred square miles. Now in all the Country, there were in the middle of the fifth age, but eleven Bishopricks, and then it was all Christian. So that every Bishop, one with another, may have a Diocese that wants not much of a hundred miles square; which can be matched by but few in our Country, besides Lincoln. But because the division of Dioceses is generally unequal, as the Territories of Cities were, some of these will fall out to be vastly great, and others but of moderate ex∣tent. Nor is there any place for suspicion,

that Bishopricks were sunk or united in this Country; for it was so far from that, that several of these few were erected in the fourth Century. Sasima was made a Bishoprick by Basil, which before belonged to Caesarea or Tyana: for Gregory's expression is ambiguous. From Tyana it was two and thirty miles di∣stant; from Caesarea above a hundred. And upon second thoughts, it seems to me, rather to belong to the first; for it was nearer to it, and within its Province, and given up by Basil, who desires(t) Anthimus the new Metropo∣litan to take care of it. Nazianzus too was a Bishoprick raised in the fourth Century, as we may learn from Nazianzen,(u) who says, that the place had but one Bishop before his Fa∣ther.

In the Council of Ephesus, one John subscribes(x) himself Bishop of all Lesbus. The Island according to Strabo(y) was eleven hundred furlongs, which wants not much of seven score miles in compass. Nor had this Bishop summed up all his titles; for his Successour Florentius, in the Council of Chalcedon, writes(z) himself Bishop of several other Islands.

Now if one City cannot have Territory enough in the judgment of the Congregational Anti∣quaries, to make a large Diocese; two ancient Cities with their Territories, may surely yield a Diocese of many Congregations. And in the Council of Ephesus(a) there were several Bishops, who had two Cities within their Dio∣cese. Timothy was Bishop of Fermissus and Eu∣docias. Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis. And in Europa there are many in∣stances of this nature; and the Bishops of that Province affirm, that it had been so immemo∣rially. There is an old custom, say they,(b) in the Provinces of Europa, that every Bishop should have as it were two Bishopricks under him, i. e. two Cities. So one had Heraclea and Panium; another Bizya and Arcadiopolis; a third had Caele and Callipolis; another had Subsadia and Aphrodisias. They add, that it had been so of old, and from the beginning; and desire the Council to prevent any Innovation, which the Metropolitan might attempt, out of displea∣sure against his Provincials, who in that Synod happened to go against him. Nice in Bithynia had several Regions belonging to it.(c) Tat∣taeus and Doris, and that which was afterward call∣ed Basinopolis by Julian, was till then accounted a part of the Diocese of Nice. In Egypt, the Ter∣ritory

of Alexandria hath been already men∣tioned; and in Pentapolis, Ptolemais had many Country Churches, as I have already observed out of Synesius:(d) and he complains, that all the Churches in Ampelitis, that was under him, were burned down; distinguishing, as I conceive, the Ampelitis which was under him, from that which belonged to Cyrene. For there were two Regions in Pentapolis of that name, as we are informed by Agrotas in Ste∣phanus. And Eutychius, who is an Author in favour with those that reject Bishops, says, that Theophilus made one of the three Brothers, who afterwards gave him so great trouble, a Bishop(e) of several Cities in Egypt. But the Bishop of Tomi surpasses all the rest for extent of Diocese; his Bishoprick was made up of the whole Province of Scythia, which had many Cities in it, as we are told by Sozomen.(f)

The Territories of many other Cities are mentioned by Christian Writers, with respect to their Ecclesiastical as well as Civil depen∣dance. Bethelia was a Village in the Territo∣ry of Gaza, very great and populous; and by the account Sozomen(g) gives of it, might be∣come a City. It had many Churches and Monasteries in it, built by the Ancestors of that Historian.

Another Village, called Capharcobra, is men∣tioned by the same Author belonging to this City. And if the Bishop of Gaza had but one Church in his City, he must have many in the Territory belonging to it: for before Constantine's time, Silvanus is styled Bishop of the Churches of or about Gaza. In the same Country Eleutheropolis(h) had a Territory, and several Villages of it are mentioned; Caphar, and Besanduca where Epiphanius was born: Cela once a City, and Berath Satia, where the bones of the Prophets Habakkuk and Micah are said to be found.

In the middle of the fifth Century, Bishops were grown much more numerous than in the fore-going Ages; and therefore their Bishop∣ricks were of less extent. Yet then in many Provinces of the Empire the Dioceses were very large, which we may learn, by compar∣ing the number of the Bishops in several Pro∣vinces, with the measure of the Country. Labbe the Jesuit has published an ancient Copy of the subscriptions of the Council of Chalce∣cedon, which he found among the Papers of Simond. In that Copy, the subscribing Bishops are digested according to their Provinces, and the Metropolitans set down the names of all that were absent. So that in several Provinces we have the whole number of Bishops. And within a few years after this Council, we have the Synodical Epistles of many plenary Pro∣vincial

Councils. If therefore we can have any certainty concerning the limits of those Countries, we may easily find out a common measure for the Dioceses. I have already shewed how large the Dioceses of Cappadocia were up∣on this foot; and I have occasionally mention∣ed Crete, the Circuit of the Island being known and the number of their Bishops. Cyprus too hath been computed, but it was by the Notitia of Leo, which hath three Bishopricks more than were in the time of the Council of Chalcedon; for then all the Bishops of that Island were but ten, of whom six were present at the Council, and three absent. Yet about this time did Sozo∣men live, who observed, that in Cyprus there were Bishops in Villages.

Where nature hath made the bounds of Coun∣tries, they remain always the same; and a computation of the largeness of Dioceses in such places from the number of them will be certain. But where limits are arbitrary, and depend only upon the agreement of men, they are frequently changed: and a Country may still retain the same name, though the limits have been often altered. However in the pre∣sent question, which does not require exact∣ness, we have such notices of the distance of places left in ancient descriptions, as give suf∣ficient evidence of the greatness of ancient Dio∣ceses in many Countries. In the Province of Helenopontus there were but five Bishops, as ap∣pears(i) by their Synodical Epistle to Leo:

yet was this Country of very great extent, as we may judge by the distance of those Epis∣copal Cities. For Sinope was(l) a hundred and twelve miles from Amisus, or a hundred and thirty according to Pliny;(m) and that little less from Zela; and that place as far from Amasea. The Territory of this last City joyned to that of Zela, and was above sixty miles in length that way, as we have noted already. Iborea seems to be on the borders of Cappadocia, and to be the same with that mentioned by Gregory Nyssen.(n) So that the Bishopricks of this Province can∣not come short of the Northern, which Mr. Clerkson fancies to have no equals in an∣cient times.

In Pontus Polemoniacus, there are but four Bishops subscribers(o) to the Synodical Epistle of that Province. The Bishop of Trapezus, who belonged to that Province, was not there. Now if we consider the distance between these Episcopal Cities, the Dioceses must be judged unmeasurably great. For from Polemonium to Trapezus there are(p) about two hundred miles. Cerasus is in the middle, between those two Cities. Neocaesarea is above a hundred miles within the Land; from which Comana is about sixty miles. The Province of Europa(q) took up the greatest part of Thrace; yet

the Bishops here were but few, the Dioceses being very large, as we have observed before. Old Epirus was eightscore miles in length; and by the Episcopal Towns there in the fifth Century, we may find the bounds of the Pro∣vince were not much altered. Yet in this long Tract, there were(r) but eight Bishops under the Metropolitan of Nicopolis. Anchi∣asmus, or Onchesmus, is about a hundred miles from Nicopolis; Hadriana was further: Bu∣thotum was twenty miles short of those, and Dodona about fifty from the Metropolis. Cor∣cyra was one of the Bishopricks, an Island forty five miles in length. New Epirus which took up a good part of Illyricum,(s) had but six Bishops under the Metropolitan of Dyrrachium. Some doubt has been made,(t) which was the old Epirus, and which the new; but the Titles of these Synodical Epistles, as well as the an∣cient Notitiae, set that point out of all con∣troversie. In Greece it self, where Mr. Clerk∣son thought Bishopricks had been like our Pa∣rishes, they are found to be of great extent, the face of that Country having been much altered from what it had been in ancienter times. It would be endless to pursue such instances as these over the Roman Empire, nor is it at all necessary; for these are sufficient to shew the measure of ancient Dioceses, when their num∣ber was at the greatest.

It must be confessed, that in some Countries, where Cities stood thick, there were more Dio∣ceses in proportion, than in the Provinces al∣ready mentioned. But then such Countries were generally very populous, and what they wanted in measure, they made up in number; and even there the Dioceses did consist of a great number of such Parishes as ours generally are. The Hellespont was well furnished with Cities, and not a little Province. Yet were there in all(u) but sixteen Bishops under the Metropolis of Cyzicus, of whom ten were pre∣sent at the Council of Chalcedon, and six absent, for whom the Metropolitan subscribed. Asia, properly so called, and that which was immedi∣ately under Ephesus, had as many Bishops in proportion to the measure of the Country, as any Province in the Empire; yet here if we proceed upon a common measure, the Dioceses will not be so contemptibly small. I know that Asia signifies very ambiguously, and takes in sometimes more and sometimes fewer Countries; but that does not concern the pre∣sent question; for the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon do sufficiently discover the extent of this Province. It reached from Ephesus to Assus, and to Ilium, if we may de∣pend upon that reading; but Arch Bishop Ʋsher(x) hath excepted against it, and not without reason. However it reached to Troas,

and the line wants not much of two hundred Miles, comprehending all Jonia and Aeolis, and all North to Troas. But then it must be considered, that this Country consists of a multi∣tude of large Peninsulae, which adds much to the content. For instance, from Ephesus to Smyrna in a direct line is but forty Miles; but by Sea round the Peninsula, and coasting from Town to Town, it is two hundred and seventy five. In all this Province there were forty Bishops in the fifth Century, of whom there were eighteen present at the Council of Chalcedon,(y) and the two and twenty who were absent, subscribed by their Metropolitan. In so large a Country, and so full of Cities and People, it would be something difficult to dispose of them all in forty Congregations.

But the extent of ancient Dioceses remains still visible in France. Scaliger, who was not apt to take the measures of ancient times and things by his own, was of opinion,(z) that al∣tho that Country had undergon many Revolu∣tions as to civil Government, yet the Eccle∣siastical State still retained some entire foot∣steps of the ancient division of the Empire; therefore he chuses to proceed according to the Ecclesiastical Dioceses or Bishopricks of that Country; for in so doing, he judged,

he should keep to the ancient Notitia of the Roman Empire. All that he observed(a) of alteration, was only the new Bishopricks. But these cannot be any hindrance, as long as it is known from what Dioceses those new Bishopricks were taken; for the old Dio∣ceses were so much the less. It is well known the Dioceses of France are not like our Pa∣rishes; and yet the greatest part of them re∣main as they were thirteen hundred years ago. And here Learned Men think(b) the Dioceses have the same bounds they had when they were first set by the Christians, according to the Disposition of the Empire. Those that are the smallest, in that Kingdom, are like∣wise the latest. For in the first Aquitain(c) there were four new Bishopricks erected by Pope John XXII. taken from the neighbour∣ing Cities. In the second Aquitain, the same Pope made(d) the same number. In the Diocese of Tholouse he erected six. So that contrary to Mr. Clerkson's notion, the old Dio∣ceses are still the largest, and the new Papal erections draw nearest to his Congregational way; as is evident in this Country of which I am speaking, as well as in Italy. The East and West of France, as Scaliger notes, have retained their Bishopricks in their ancient

form, and there they are the most unlike our Parishes and the imagination of Mr. Clerk∣son. So it is needless to go to Asia, and Sy∣ria, and Arabia, to look for the bounds of ancient Dioceses which have been lost so long ago; when we have so clear and full evi∣dence nearer home. Yet these Bishopricks of France, as large as they seem to be, are much less than they were in the Primitive ages be∣fore Constantine; if we may depend upon the opinion of a very Learned Man,(e) and a good Judg of such matters. For before Con∣tantin's time, says Bucherius, altho there were many Christians in Gaule, there were but few Bishops; for it is possible that two Cities might be under one Bishop, as afterwards Bologne and Teroanne, Cambray and Arras, Tournay and Noyon, had but one Bishop for two Cities. For as it is certain, that some Cities in that Country had Bishops before Constantin's times; so it is as certain, that several had none till the time of his Sons. This was the case of Angier, and some other places mentioned in the same Author, which he proves by the number of Successions. For instance, Defensor, who was one of the Ordainers of St. Martin, was the first Bishop of Angier. There were but ten Bishops of Vermand before Sophronius, who subscribed in the Synod of Orleans Anno 511. And Silvanus was but the ninth Bishop

of Senlis, who was also present at the same Synod. And the same Author proves(f) that in the two Belgick Provinces the Bisho∣pricks preserved the same bounds from Constan∣tin's time to the last age, when Pius the Fourth erected new Seas; and certainly there are few places in the World, where there were longer Bishopricks.

It is evident beyond all reasonable doubt, that the number of Bishops in the three first ages was far less than in those that followed. Nor have I met with any who called this in question, but Mr. Seldon. He indeed being in great distress for his Arabian Fabler, who brings above two thousand Bishops to the Council of Nice, to save the credit of his Au∣thor, suggests,(g) that in Constantin's time; and before, Dioceses had other bounds, and Bishopricks were more numerous and of less extent, than in the succeeding ages, when Christianity was established by Law. That the bounds of ancient Bishopricks are altogether unknown, and those which follow the civil distribution of the Provinces of the Empire, are new. He mentions and recommends Ber∣terius and Salmasius concerning the Suburbicary Regions upon this occasion; but I do not find they have any thing to his purpose, or that they were of his opinion. It is strange a person of so great reading should advance a notion con∣cerning

ancient times, against the general o∣pinion of Learned Men, without any testi∣mony from Antiquity to give it countenance; especially when there are so many things in the Writers of the third and fourth Centuries, that seem to overthrow it. What! did not the Church before Constantine follow the civil disposition? How then came the Bishop of Alexandria to have jurisdiction over Egypt, Ly∣bia and Pentapolis, so long before the Council of Nice; for there it was confirmed as an an∣cient and immemorial Custom? How came the Bishop of Rome to challenge the Suburbicary Regions by the same prescription? And be∣fore this, How came Cyprian to preside in the general or provincial Synods of Africk, but in the right of his City? He was not long a Bishop, and could not preside by his Seni∣ority, which in the other Provinces of Africk took place after the rights of Metropolitans had been setled in all the other parts of the Empire. How came Cornelius to assemble the Bishops of Italy, and to preside when he was so young a Bishop, but by the preheminence of his City? These things are so obvious, that they cannot be avoided. As to the num∣ber of Bishopricks, what can be more plain, than that they were generally according to the number of Cities? Those Provinces which had most Cities, had most Bishops. But in the general, it is evident that the number of Bi∣shopricks was much less before Constantine, than since. Africa makes this clear beyond contra∣diction; and whoever compares either the Pro∣vincial or general Synods of that Country in

Cyprian's time, with those that followed in the next age, will quickly be convinced. The general Synod under Cyprian, concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks, had but eighty seven Bishops, of whom there were four sub∣scribed from the Province of Tripolis, two present, and two by proxy, who in all pro∣bability were all of the Province; which in the next age, when Bishops were multiplied every where else in Africk beyond all example, had but one more; and it cannot be well doubted, but other Provinces sent in the same proportion. For this was one of the most re∣mote; and is spared by following Synods upon that account, as to the number it is to send to Synods. Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth Century, affirms, that Mareotes, a large Region belonging to Alexandria, never had a Bishop, but always belonged to the Bishop of the City. Why? but because it was part of its Territory? So this fancy of Mr. Selden is disproved by undoubted Evidence; and the contrary is too plain to be disputed.

The Christians in the first three ages were dispersed over the Empire, so that there was hardly a Town where there were not some; and those, if they had no Bishop, had a Pres∣byter or a Deacon for Divine Service. Now the fewer Bishops are found in those times, the more of these Subordinate Officers must be acknowledged. Of these there was not one independent from some Bishop; and there∣fore the fewer Bishops, the more Congrega∣tions they must have under their inspection. And therefore if we compare the account

Tertullian gives of the number of the Christians, and their dispersion in all manner of places; we must conclude the Dioceses of the first ages to be larger than of those that succeeded, if not for multitude, at leastwise for extent and number of smaller Congregations. In the fourth and fifth Centuries we read of many new Bishopricks erected; but of no old ones united or sunk: And those Canons, which forbid the making of Bishops in Villages, do expresly except those where there had been any before. So that by the rules of these ages in which Mr. Selden supposes an alterati∣on, the number of the old Bishopricks could not be diminished; and it is plain by many instances, that they were encreased.

Nor could this pretended change of the bounds of Dioceses in the fourth Century be made without great clamour and disturbance: for there never was an age of greater ani∣mosity among Christians; the parties were very watchful, and cried out upon every the least Innovation. What complaints must we have heard, if all the Dioceses in the Empire must have been cast, as it were, in a new mold; and so many by this reduction must have lost either the whole, or part of their Bi∣shopricks? If any thing of this nature had been so much as attempted; it is impossible but some account must have been left of it, by an age so much abounding in Writers.

However it is sufficient for our present purpose, that the Bishops of the first ages were Diocesans, and had many of them more Congregations than one within their Dioceses.

Before the end of the third Century, Manes is said(h) to have disputed with Archelaus Bishop of Caschara in Mesopatamia, where it seems the people were generally Christians; for they were so provoked by the Blasphemies of that Heretick, that they were ready to stone him. Wherefore Manes forced out of that City, went into(i) a Village that belonged to it, at a considerable distance, as the cir∣cumstances of the story suggest, where there was a Parish-Presbyter named Tryphon, who had the care of that Parish. So that the Pa∣rishes of the Territory had no Bishops, but Presbyters under the Bishop of the City. In the Prefecture of Arsinoe, where Nepos had been Bishop, there were many Country Pa∣rishes under Presbyters, who belong to that Bishop, as(l) Dionysius of Alexandria relates. And it is usual within the three first Centuries, to mention many Churches belonging to one Bishop. Mark is said(m) to have gathered several Churches in Alexandria; and Julian, one of the Bishops of that City, is said(n) to have had the over-sight of the Churches of Alexandria; the same thing is said(o) of De∣metrius, and Dionysius,(p) and Peter, Bishops of that place. So Basilides is stiled by Diony∣sius,

(q) Bishop of the Churches of Pentapolis; Silvanus Bishop(r) of the Churches of Gaza, and another of the same name of the Churches of Emesa, and Meletius Bishop(s) of the Churches of Pontus; which stile cannot in any construct∣on suit a Bishop of a single Congregati∣on.

After having cleared the main point in question, it may seem needless to take any farther notice of Mr. Clerkson's Discourse. For having little or nothing of fact to alledg farther, he proceeds to draw Corollaries only from what he had said before, and walks for∣ward in great security and confidence that he had proved his point. How different his fan∣cy of antiquity is from the truth and reality of the matter, does by this time, I hope, suf∣ficiently appear. However I will follow him still; and when he offers any thing that has the countenance of an Argument, it shall not pass without some notice taken of it.

(t) If the Territory were large, he fancies the Christians were but few in Villages, because those were last of all converted: Hence Hea∣then Idolaters were called Pagani. But the Apostles preached and made Converts in the Country as well as the City, according to Clemens. And Tertullian boasting of the num∣bers of Christians, affirms, there was no Vil∣lage nor place without them in his time. But

when the Cities became entirely converted, the Heathen retired into the Country; and tho' they were but few in comparison of the Christians, yet there they were most numerous. He tells us(u) there were many Villages in the fourth age, in which there were no Christians, very many in which there were but few, and but few in comparison, in which all were Christians. The affirmation of a man who is an humble servant to a new notion, concerning distant matters of fact, makes but bad payment. Thus therefore he proves it. If a Village wholly Christian had not been a rarity, even in Jerom's time, why does he make it a singular ob∣servation of Jethura?(x) Villa praegrandis Je∣thura, habitatoresque ejus omnes Christiani sunt. Surely a reason may be assigned without mak∣ing this matter such a rarity. And St. Jerom in the same place does suggest it, when he observes that it is situate in Daroma, near Malatha. For in that part it seems there were not many Pagans, but Jews. For in Daroma there was(y) a great Village of the Jews called Eschemo; this being some remote part where it seems they retired, and for that reason it might be observed of Jethura, that it was all Christian.

(z) When Christians in the territory were many, yet being disposed, as generally they were, under other Bishops than him in the City, his Diocese had

no enlargement thereby. How far this is from being true, is sufficiently evident from the in∣stances given of the Dioceses of City Bishops; and Mr. Clerkson alledges nothing for proof, but the Bishops of Hippo, who only met there in a Synod, as we have shewed before.(a) He mentions(b) a Bishop in the Castl•• Sy••ica near to Hippo, but not in the Region▪ for he expresly distinguishes, and says it was near the Colony of Hippo. He mentions a few African Bishops in the Territories of Cities; but we have already shewed, that it was Schism erected those Bishops in Villages, and that from the beginning it was not so. Basinopolis, whi•••• was once a Village and made a City, was taken out of the Diocese of Nice, and was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Nicene Bishop. And so was Ely, and Peterborough, and Ox∣ford, taken from the Diocese of Lincoln; and yet the remainder is still enormously great. He tells us too, of a Bishoprick raised in the Precinct of Caesarea in Cappadocia, but at a great distance from it; and half a dozen more Dioceses might have been well spared out of Caesarea. At last he comes to(c) the territory of Rome, if that be it, which was under the Pro∣vost of the City. It was well he demurred up∣on this point, for that indeed was not the Territory, but the Province of the City, and con∣sisted of several Provinces. And the Bishops

there, tho' they were many, were not of the Congregational way. Nor are all the Bishops he finds in the Roman Provincial, in the Pro∣vince of Rome, within the distance of an hun∣dred miles: but of this a large account hath been given. He notes farther, That there was not one Parish or Church in the Territory of Rome, that belonged to the City Bishop. And for this he cites Innocent's Epistle to Decentius, cum omnes Ecclesiae nostrae intra civitatem constitutae sunt. If the Bishop of Rome had no Country Parish, then the neighbouring Bishops had the more. But we are not to conclude this too hastily; for it is not very certain, where that which he called the City ended, nor yet what sort of Churches he speaks of; for he had Presbyters in other places besides those in the Churches of Rome, and such as consecrated the Sacrament themselves, and consequently had Congregati∣ons; for then there were no private Masses. and to these he did(d) not send the Sacrament consecrated, because they had authority to do it themselves; and these as well as the other were in his Diocese. To this he adds some instances of Bishops, whose jurisdiction was confined within their Walls, Some in Italy, And that of Dublin, when John Papyron the Popes Legat came over. But all these are new, and that of Dublin is so too;(e) for that be∣ing

a Norman Colony, and the Irish possessing all without the walls of the City, the Norman Bishops Jurisdiction could extend no farther than the possession of his own people.

To this he adds a marvellous remark, that the word(f) by which some will have him to un∣derstand a Diocese, is frequently said to be in the City. And of this expression he cites many examples; as if this implied, that out of the City there was no Diocese. But let that in∣stance of Alexandria answer for all the rest, since it is produced to this purpose. For be∣sides the City, Athanasius affirms, the Bishop had Mareotes a Region containing many Coun∣try Parishes, and that there never had been so much as a Chorepiscopus to govern those Churches; but that they were under the immedi∣ate Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria. We are farther told,(g) that the Apostles designed there should be such Bishops, as they instituted, in Country Towns, and not in Cities only. If he means by such Bishops, Presbyters only; then indeed not only every Church, but every Con∣gregation required such; but the Bishops of the Apostles Ordination had the care of many Congregations. And it is plain in Scripture, that such general Officers they did appoint, and they themselves were of that kind. Some Prelatists, he observes, will have Bishop and City to be adequate; but he will have it, that Church and Bishop should be so; for it is not the

City, as such, requires a Bishop, but because it had a Church in it. It is true; but the narrowness of the Independent spirit confounds a Church with a Congregation. For as in the civil com∣munity of a City, there were several subor∣dinate Assemblies, yet but one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proper∣ly so called, which was endued with the au∣thority of the whole Body: So it might be in the Churches planted by the Apostles. Where therefore there was one competent Church, there was a Bishop; but this might consist of several Congregations. The Church of Jeru∣salem may be still mentioned to this purpose, after all Mr. Clerkson's attempts to diminish it. The number of Converts there was too great for one Congregation,(h) yet they all made but one Church; and so it was where ever Christians increased in the same propor∣tion. And therefore I hope to be excused, if in this case I take the practice of the Apostles and of the Church in succeeding ages, to be safer Interpreters of their design, than the novel conjectures of men addicted to singu∣larity. The instance of Majuma the Port of Gaza, is directly against the purpose for which it is brought; for it had no Bishop till it was a City. And one thing in this citation of Mr. Clerkson concerning it, deserves to be noted. For where Sozomen says, that the bounds of each Diocese were appointed, and what Altars should belong to each; our Author thought fit to change the number, and to write

distinct Altar, as agreeing better with his no∣tion; though this way does not agree well with common honesty and good faith. The weak objection which he makes for Episcopal men, and the suitable answer he returns to it, are not worth notice. For here he speaks only to himself; and I do not wonder he should argue so weakly for us, when his arguments against us are so harmless. So the Mother of Sisera and her wise Ladies, did doubt and reply, and fancy Triumphs, when the day was lost.

The difference between the modern and ancient models is apparent, as Mr. Clerkson thinks, in En∣gland and Ireland. The ancient model of Epis∣copacy in England is something hard to find. For the Saxons being Pagans, when they sub∣dued this Country, and driving the old In∣habitants into the remote corners of it; all the bounds of civil and Ecclesiastical Juris∣diction within this Kingdom were lost. But the model he speaks of, is that of Gregory the Great, who had no more design to plant Con∣gregational Episcopacy in England, than he had to make it Independent. He intended twelve Bishops for the Province of York, as Mr. Clerkson observes; but that might have been done, and the Dioceses be large enough. For that Province then reached from Humbre to the Frith of Edinburgh; and about the year 681. had five Bishops (however Mr. Clerk∣son affirms, that for many ages it had no more than three) and every one of them had Dio∣ceses of very great extent. Those in the South were not all so great, but yet compre∣hended

many Congregations; and some of them [as Canterbury, London and Rochester] do remain still under the same limits that were at first appointed them by Augustin the Archbishop. How they stood before the com∣ing of the Saxons, is now beyond all memo∣ry; and there is little hope left of making any new discovery in this matter, which hath been treated by so many great men, and dili∣gent inquirers into the Antiquities of their Country. Marcianus Heracleota(i) reckons fifty nine Cities in Britain, which I suppose he took out of Ptolomy.(l) Many of these are placed in Scotland, and about forty remain for England and Wales. If they observed the ge∣neral rule of the Church, the number of their Bishops might be equal to that of their Cities; and so their Dioceses would be much too wide for Mr. Clerkson's purpose. But it seems this number was reduced afterwards. For Bede(m) mentions but twenty eight, when he would set out the most flourishing condition of this Country in the Roman times. As for the Canon of the Synod of Herudford for aug∣menting the number of Bishops, which Mr. Clerkson insists on, there was good reason for it. For at that time there were no more than seven Bishops in all the Saxon part of Bri∣tain, which then reaching to the Frith of Edin∣burg, was as large as all England and Wales joyned together are now.

The ancient model in Ireland is as little known: for the Legends of St. Patrick are but sorry evidence of the ancient state of the Irish Church, and that Fable has been already exa∣mined. In Phaenicia indeed the Latins did re∣duce the Bishopricks to a lesser number in the twelfth Century; because the condition of that Country was much altered, and most of the ancient Episcopal Cities destroyed, or the people Mahometans. But that it was the humour of that age, instead of multiplying to reduce Bi∣shopricks, is only a fancy of Mr. Clerkson. For I have shewed the practice of Italy at that time to be quite contrary; where instead of re∣ducing, they raised a great number of new Bishopricks, and have been increasing of them ever since. Nor does it serve to any purpose to produce the Patriarchat of Antioch, so dif∣ferent in the time of the Latins, from what it had been anciently; since the condition of those Countries had been much altered, and the Christians were reduced to a very small num∣ber under the long and heavy Tyranny of the Mahometans.

Mr. Clerkson bestows a whole Chapter to con∣firm his notion of the smallness of ancient Bishopricks, by repeating those observations he had already made: That all the people should be present at the election of Bishops; that the Bishop was to examine the state of the Penitents; that he was to preach to all the Brethren; that there was but one Commu∣nion table in a Diocese. All these have been answered already; and it is evident by many instances, as well as the necessity of the thing

it self, that the Christians of the Country had distinct Congregations, and setled Pres∣byters to attend them, all in subordination to the City Bishop; that their Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper were admini∣stred there by those Presbyters; that, as for Discipline and Confirmation, the Bishop visit∣ed those places in person; that those Con∣gregations were not obliged to repair to the City-Church, so much as on Easter or the most solemn Festivals. These things are as plain as words can express. Athanasius, Basil, Au∣gustin, and several others give an account of their visitations. And Jerom(n) cannot deny it to be an ancient custom, that the Bishop of the City should visit the Villages and Bur∣roughs and remote places of his Diocese, to confirm those who had been baptized there by Presbyters or Deacons.

There is nothing more precarious, and more destitute of the appearance of truth, than the deduction our Author makes of the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy, and the rise of it, from the destruction of the Congregational model.(o) A Bishop of a Country Parish would be striv∣ing to get another Parish under him. The third Council of Carthage, Can. 46. takes notice of such Bishops. Nothing can be more directly against his purpose than that Canon; by which it appears, that such Country places as had Bishops, were of new erection; that they had

been ever before parts of a greater Diocese,(p) and taken out of a multitude which be∣longed all to one Bishop; that some of these new Bishops challenged other parts of the Dio∣cese out of which their Bishoprick was taken, besides that which was appointed them. So that the design of Mr. Clerkson is defeated by his own evidence. For whereas he would sug∣gest, that Dioceses did rise by the incroach∣ment of the Bishop of one Parish upon ano∣ther, and by joyning Parish to Parish: The quite contrary appears from the place alledg∣ed; that the Bishop of one Parish, as he calls him, was raised by crumbling of ancient Dioceses; and that the other Parish, which he is said to challenge, was not such a one as had a Parish Bishop to it self, but was part of a Diocese consisting of many such; and that this large Bishoprick was the ancient, the small an innovation. I perceive that consci∣ence does not always operate alike in those who pretend so great niceness. For while they take offence and start at a trifle, they make no scruple of sins of unfaithfulness; and represent that as truth and reality, which in their own conscience they know to be other∣wise.

(q)When a Bishop had part of a City, he was unsatisfied till he had got the whole. Thus Flavianus at Antioch would not suffer a Bishop to be made to

succeed Evagrius, that he might have the City in∣tire to himself. One may be apt to imagine, that in ancient time Antioch was divided be∣tween many Bishops, and that this Flavianus was the first ambitious man, who would have the City entire to himself. Whereas be∣fore the Schisms that distracted the Church of that place, the City had ever had but one Bi∣shop. But the Arrians having the possession of the publick Churches, and being established there by authority, the Catholick Party which was very low there at that time, happened(r) to be divided; Meletius being Bishop of one part, and Paulinus of the other. This being against the rule and constant practice of the Church, it was agreed to put an end to this irregularity, by uniting all, when one should die, under the Survivor. Flavianus broke this agreement; for when Meletius died, he procured himself to be made Bishop in his stead, against Paulinus who was the Survivor. And he likewise dying, his party chose Eva∣grius in opposition to Flavianus; who when that Competitor was dead, endeavoured to hinder the ordination of a successour. And this is the story, which Mr. Clerkson thinks fit to bring as a proof, how a Bishop of a part of a City was unsatisfied till he had the whole; as if it were the rule or allowed pra∣ctice of the ancient Church, to divide a City between many Bishops.

(s)When a Bishop had a great City, yet some Village in the vicinity he could not endure should be exempt from his Jurisdiction. Majuma found this to its trouble. This had always been under Gaza, until it was made a City by Constan∣tine. So that its separation from the Dio∣cese of Gaza was the Innovation. Its depen∣dance upon that Bishop, was its ancient and primitive state; and the Bishop of the City did not desire to make a new accession to his Bishoprick, but to recover what had been tak∣en from it.

(t) Not satisfied with one City, some would have two. So four Bishops in Europa, a Province of Thrace, got each of them two Cities under him. Yet is it positively affirmed of those Cities, that they had always belonged to one Bishop; this was their primitive constitution. It is possible some of them were but lately made Cities; and having been Villages before in the Territory of another City, they continued in their Ecclesiastical subjection, after they were made Cities. Yet these were afterwards part∣ed; so far were succeeding Ages from reducing the number of Bishopricks. For Arcadiopolis, which was joyned to Byzia in the Council of Ephesus, and there affirmed to have been so im∣memorially, under Justinian had a Bishop of its own; as we find by the subscriptions(u) of the fifth Synod. Panium, joyned to Hera∣clea,

was afterwards divided from it, and made a distinct Bishoprick; had a Bishop of its own in the Council under Menna.(x) So that this instance, as well as the rest, proves directly contrary to the purpose for which it is produced. That which follows, concerning the incroachment of one Metropolitan upon the Province of another, I am not concerned to take notice of; since it does not belong to the present question.

Having abused so many Testimonies of an∣cient Writers, directly against the intention of the Authors, to countenance his dream of Congregational Episcopacy, he does not think fit to conclude without(y) taking notice, what thoughts some of the best and most eminent Bi∣shops of the fourth and fifth Ages, had of a very large Bishoprick. And thereby, he thinks, he shall perceive, that if the Church could have been or∣dered according to the principles, desires and en∣deavours of the most pious and conscientious; their Dioceses would not have been so execessively nume∣rous in the fourth or fifth Ages, above what they were in the third. By Dioceses being numerous, I suppose he means the number of people belonging to each Diocese; for otherwise it will destroy what he contends for, Dioceses being by so much more large as they are less numerous. Chrysostom, he says, may satisfie us here. What? In his judgment and conscience was he against a large bishoprick? bred in

the Diocese of Antioch, than which there were few greater in the world, and receiving the orders of Deacon and Presbyter in that Church. Afterwards removed from thence to be Bishop of the Imperial City; having so many Congregations in the City, so many Parishes in the Country, such a number of Provinces under his Jurisdiction, as made the better part of the Eastern Empire: Does he express his conscience against a very large Bishop∣rick? Surely a person of so exalted eloquence could not be guilty of such a solecism; his Chair would have born testimony against him, and refuted all his Sermon. If this was his conscience, why did he not divide? Why did he not appoint one Bishop in Sycae, another in Hestiae, where Constantine had built a Church that might have become a Bishop? Or if these places were too near, why did he not erect new Bishopricks in the remoter part of his Territory, or in his Provinces; since as Patriarch, he had sufficient authority to make what number of Bishops he pleased? He deposed indeed a great number of unwor∣thy Bishops, and ordained others in their places; but there is no account of any new erections of his in Market Towns and Vil∣lages. And his friends make bold to censure Theophilus, for making Bishops in small places, where there had been none before. It is therefore very marvellous, that the consci∣ence of so great and holy a person should de∣clare against his own practice, and condemn a large Bishoprick, while himself was posses∣sed of one of the largest in world, with∣out

discovering the least desire or endeavour to part it between several Congregational Pastors. As for his Principles, he had no other in this matter than the rule and practice of the Church. One City, according to his prin∣ciples, could have but one Bishop; and there∣fore he seems to be startled at St. Paul's direction, to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi. What, more Bishops than one, says he, in one City? No, by no means: there∣fore he concludes they were received not Bishops in the sense of the word in his times, but Presbyters only. And therefore according to his principles, if a City were never so great, it ought to have but one Bishop. However let us hear what Chrysostom says in the places cited by Mr. Clerkson.

Tell me, says that excellent Bishop,(z) what can a multitude avail us? Wilt thou understand, that the desirable multitude are the Holy, not the many?—What care I for the multitude? What advantage is in them? But here is no comparison between a great Bishoprick and a small, as such; but between many bad and few good. And in this case Chrysostom's judgment cannot be contested; it is clear, that we are to go by weight, not by number. The people of Con∣stantinople, as they were exceeding numerous, so they were very dissolute; and this holy Bi∣shop flamed against the vices of the place, with a zeal becoming his character. He is not con∣tent only to reprove and to rebuke with

authority; but threatens to use the utmost of his spiritual censures, against those that dis∣graced Christianity by their wicked lives. In this Resolution of reforming his people, he bids defiance to all discouragements and opposition. Some urged the multitude of of∣fenders against him, that too rough dealing might drive them to joyn with Sectaries. But this did not at all abate the resolution of the Bishop: He scorns the multitude upon this account, and cries, what care I for a multitude? It was far from his intention to cast off this multitude, or to divide them into several distinct Congregations under other Bishops; but his design was to reform their lives, and to build up and adorn the Church committed to him with many that were good, with a multitude not only numerous, but ap∣proved. And for this purpose he offers him∣self a sacrifice, and is content to be cut off, so that he might gain many to Christ. If Chrysostom had proceeded upon the principles of Mr. Clerkson; he must have given his dis∣course another turn, and said, that since one Bishop is not sufficient for so great a people, and a hundred and fifty Persons are a charge more than one can well discharge; it is fit that you chuse your selves Pastors after your own hearts, and enter into Covenant with them. For this great dissoluteness proceeds from the excessive greatness of the flock, and the disproportion that is between it and the ability of a single Shepherd. For this Dio∣cesan way is an innovation, and raised upon the ruin of ancient discipline. Wherefore

separate your selves, for I will not undertake the charge of above a hundred and fifty souls. To this effect he must have expressed his conscience, if his principles had been the same with Mr. Clerkson's. But he on the con∣trary lays claim to the whole flock, nume∣rous and disordered as it was; he thought himself bound in conscience to endeavour the reformation of it, and to use fullness of Episcopal authority to reduce them. He does not complain that they are many, but that they are unprofitable; would they but reform their lives, let them be as numerous as they please; for the greater their number, the greater would be his joy. So far is Chrysostom from ex∣pressing his conscience against large Bishopricks in the places cited by Mr. Clerkson.

Nor do his other Arguments drawn out of the Sermons of Chrysostom, come any thing nearer to the point. The Episcopate, says he,(a) is so called from the inspecting all. He ought to be an Overseer of all, bearing the bur∣dens of all; he had need of many thousand Eyes. —He ought to go the rounds night and day, more than any Commander in an Army. We must give account of all their souls, when we have been defective in any thing. I wonder if any Bishops can ever be saved, considering the great∣ness of the threatning, and their negligence. All this is very true, but not to our Author's purpose. Bishops are certainly accountable

for those who perish by their neglect of their proper Office. But then the duty of a gene∣ral overseer is not the same with that of a subordinate Office. A Parish Presbyter will not be condemned for not performing the duty of a Master of a Family, nor a Bishop for not doing the office of a Presbyter to all the par∣ticulars of his Diocese. But these words are to be understood with analogy to the nature of the Office of which they are spoken; but the measure of the Office cannot be taken from those expressions. A General must go the Rounds, and so must a Bishop too: But it follows not therefore, that a General ought not to command more Men than a private Cap∣tain, or that a Bishop ought to have no more Parishes than a Presbyter may supply.

What inferences are to be drawn out of this topick concerning the great ness of the Episcopal charge, and the dreadful condition of those who do not faithfully discharge it, may better be learned from Chrysostom(b) than Mr. Clerkson. Now since the account to be given of that Administration is so dread∣ful: He wonders that any should be so for∣ward to desire it. It is strange, that Men should be so ambitious of a high station in∣deed, but withall so hazardous; that they should sollicite, nay, intrude upon such a charge, and reckon it a desirable promotion to be raised to a Precipice, where without the greatest care and circumspection in the World

they must fall head-long. And certainly what he says to that effect, with a heat and elo∣quence inimitable, is sufficient, one would think, to mortify the most impotent Ambition in the World.

Another inference, which Chrysostom draws from the consideration of the danger to which the Bishop's Office does expose him, is, that therefore the People under his charge ought to respect and to love him: Knowing then, says he,(c) the greatness of his danger upon your account; You on your part ought proportionably to love and to observe him. While the Pilot is encouraged, all is safe; but if he be reproached, and hated, and hindred, all is in danger to be lost. So a Bishop,

if respected, can go on in the business of his high and necessary Office, with chearfulness and comfort: But when he is discouraged with the frowardness and evil disposition of those under his Directi∣on, his hands are weakned, the People are exposed to the mercy of the waves.

He proceeds farther to shew the respect due to that Office, even under the supposition of Mal-Administration.

For our Saviour ad∣vised the Jews to observe the Scribes, because they sate in Moses his Chair, tho their actions were not suitable to the digni∣ty of their Station: But the Bishops have a more honourable Chair, for they sit in the Chair of Christ.

Had the notion of Congregational Episco∣pacy ever come into the thoughts of Chrysostom, these inferences had been very unsuitable. For then instead of advising the People to rever∣ence and obey their Bishop, who exposed his Soul to so much danger by taking upon him∣self the care of them all, he must have advis∣ed, as Mr. Clerkson and his Brethren would have done, that they would separate from him, for they were too many for the oversight of one Bishop: He could not Preach to them all: He could not Visit nor Comfort them all: There were Men of as great gifts willing to receive them in elect Congregations; these should look into the inward state of the Soul, and the secrets of their Families: As for the Bishop he had more than he could look well after, and it was not fit that they should swell his accounts too high by adding to his charge. If Chrysostom had the same thoughts of a large Bishoprick with Mr. Clerkson, such must have been his Discourse. But he was far from chang∣ing the ancient bounds, or desiring Bishops in consideration of the danger of so great a charge, to divide their Dioceses till they should be re∣duced to the Congregational Model; much less did he suggest to the People, that they should subdivide, since their Bishops would not restore the pretended Primitive Episcopacy.

I cannot omit one passage out of Chrysostom, which Mr. Clerkson either mistook, or was wil∣ling to pervert to his purpose. But as it is cited, it is directly contrary to the sense and

words of the Author;(d) He that hath the charge of a great City, see how great a flame he exposes himself too. —For all the things that are not acted by him he shall be responsible. Now Chry∣sostom among other dangers, to which the E∣piscopal Function is exposed, reckons it none of the least, that he is to Ordein other Bishops. And therefore if for friendship or other reasons he shall promote an unworthy person, and commit to him the care of a great City, how great a flame does he expose himself to? He is guilty of all the Souls the other shall destroy, and shall be responsible for all the things that are acted by him. Mr. Clerk∣son has added here a small word that makes great alteration of the sense, it is [not] and hath perverted the whole passage from the Or∣deiners to the persons Ordeined; and to make all fit, he is forced to change the words. Had he been to represent the danger of those Ordeiners, he would not only have made them responsible for the miscarriages of un∣worthy Bishops, but charged upon them as an unpardonable neglect, that they did not Ordein many Bishops for every great City, since one, tho never so diligent, must be insufficient for the charge. But this Chrysostom could not think of. For tho he is said to have foretold some things, yet the notions of the Indepen∣dents, as well as the Sect, were at too great a distance from him to be foreseen.

It seems to me matter of great astonishment, to see Men pretending to a Conscience so

nice and scrupulous in Religion, to deal with so little Faith, and to abuse the most moving and lively eloquence of ancient Preachers, and words as it were of fire, only to make a little false light, to abuse the ignorant and simple into a belief, that Novelty is ancient, that Schism is Catholick Unity, and that Chrysost∣om, the great Patriarch of the Imperial City, was in his Principles and desires an Indepen∣dent. Lord! How long shall mean delusions be permitted to have so powerful and prevailing influence? How long shall the Wolf possess the Sheep against their Shepherds, and break into the Folds under the disguise of Sheeps-cloathing? How long shall the deluded Peo∣ple have eys and not see; and the Souls, for which Christ died, be under the power of De∣ceivers? How long will it be, ere the Hypocrite be disrobed; and the People see through the disguise of those who abuse them? Surely there will come a time, when God will hear the Prayers and Expostulations of his Servants: When the faithful Shepherd shall gather to∣gether those that are scattered, and bring back those that are gone astray: When he shall carry them on his shoulders rejoycing and triumph∣ing in the disappointment of the beasts of prey. But who shall live, when this comes to pass? Blessed surely shall their Eys be, who en∣joy the sight; a joyful and pleasant thing beyond expression it will be, to see brethren dwell to∣gether in Unity.

I should have concluded here, but that my Author continues to abuse his Reader after the same manner in another Chapter, which con∣teins,

for the most part, such allegations as he had produced before; but something more being added, it seemed necessary to add some brief re∣flections.

(e) When the Bishop could not be content with a moderate charge, but extended it to such a large∣ness, that it became ungovernable by him; This pretended ruling was no longer government but anar∣chy: as Isidore speaks of a Bishop of his time. l. 3. cap. 319. That this is said of a Bishop, does by no means appear from that Epistle: but the cir∣cumstances direct us to understand it rather of a Civil Judg than of a Bishop. Ʋnder such a ones government, says Isidore, which was anarchy rather than government, punishment went before ac∣cusation: for being an unreasonable man, it is no wonder he should act so preposterously, and pervert all methods of Justice. But that this was a Bishop, or had a large Bishoprick, and would not be content with a moderate charge, but extended it to such a largeness to be ungovernable, Mr. Clerkson did not find in Isidore, but in his sleep: for surely his Conscience must be a-sleep, when he knowing∣ly perverts the words of ancient Authors, to impose upon the World. With the same in∣tegrity he useth Basil's words: Through this ambi∣tion of governing all, all Church government came to nothing. de Sp. S. c. ult. This governing all, which makes the passage look as if it were di∣rected against large Bishopricks, is not in Basil; but without this addition Mr. Clerkson might think the citation would not be to his purpose.

The place deserves to be taken notice of: and when I have represented it as it is in the Au∣thor, let the World judg who is most concern∣ed in that reproach. Every one, says that Fa∣ther,(f) will be a Divine, tho his Soul be ble∣mished with ten thousand spots. Hence it is, that those who are given to change, strengthen their Faction. Impatient ambition invades the high places of the Church without call or ordination; despising the Oe∣conomy of the Holy Ghost, and all the precepts of the Gospel.(g) Hence it is, that there is so much rush∣ing upon the Offices of the Church, every one in∣truding into those sacred places; and through that ambition Anarchy hath seized the Church, and the people are left without government. Hence it is, that the exhortations of the Bishops are vain and inef∣fectual, because every one is more forward to rule others than to obey; his ignorance and his pride pos∣sessing him with a vain opinion of his own abilities.(h) Here is not the least notice taken, whether the Bishopricks were litle or great; much less is this confusion charged upon their too great extent. It is ambition only that is here re∣proved, and the impatience of those, who when they could not in a regular way advance themselves to the government of the Church, became Bishops of their own making.

Upon a supposition that a Primitive Bishop had but one Congregation, Mr. Clerkson pro∣ceeds to shew, that every Congregation, which is always adequate to a Church in his notion,

had a right of ordering it self, and appointing what rites it thought fit. And to that pur∣pose he observes out of Socrates and Sozomen, that in several parts of the World there were different usages and customs. But is there any instance in antiquity of people that sepa∣rated from their Bishop and their own Church, because they would not comply with the customs and rites received there? For in∣stance, in Rome it was customary to fast on Saturday; In other Countries they fasted the day before. Now did any Roman Christian forsake his Church, because they did not fast on Friday? Or did any African part Communion, because the Saturday was not observed there as it was in Rome? S. Augustin's judgment in this point is well known, and universally ap∣proved. He directs every Christian to comply with the rites and customs of the Church where he happens to be, tho he find some things dif∣ferent from the usage of his own Church. The reverence, which the Primitive Christians had for the Forms in which they were brought up, raised in them some scruple, when they came to observe those of other Churches to be different. But as to their own particular rites and usages proper to each respective Country, they were so peaceably and religiously observed, that they were never made a pretence of Separation, or so much as the occasion of a Controversy. Some differences indeed did arise very early between Churches of different Countries, about the time of Easter, and rebaptizing of Hereticks; but in the conclusion, every one adhered to his own way, which he thought the best; and he was

generally blamed, who took upon him to pre∣scribe to the rest. Let us suppose therefore in this case an African Christian, who had lived some time in Rome, and taken a liking to the peculiar usages of that Church, should after his return home disparage the received order of his own Church; and to shew how much he had improv∣ed by Travel, indeavour to introduce foreign Customs: What treatment think you would such a one have received from S. Augustin, or S. Cy∣prian? Such a troubler of the peace and or∣der of the Church would soon find himself cast out by the severest censures, unless they might think it more advisable to send him to the Exorcist. This was plainly the case between the Church of England and the first Dissenters. Some of the English Exiles took I know not what fondness to the usages of some Protestant Churches abroad, and a strange dislike to their own way: They returned home with foreign manners, and set them up in opposition to the order of their own Church, and at last parted Communion upon this pretence. It is not here a place to enquire into their reasons, or to make a comparison between what they chose and what they rejected. This only I may be bold to say, that their Schism is without ex∣ample, either in ancient or later ages. For who ever separated from the Church of Geneva, in favour of some peculiarities he might have seen in Zurich? Or what French-Man forsook the Communion of the French Churches, because they had some Ceremonies different from those of Holland? Or did a Hollander ever run out of the Church, because the Preacher was unco∣vered,

out of pure zeal to the custom of France, where the Preacher took the same liberty with the Congregation, of being covered too? Our Church does not pretend to prescribe to any other; nor does she think it reasonable any other should prescribe to her: but as all other Churches use their discretion in appointing what rites they think most meet, so does she; and is the only Church in the World, that I know, forsaken upon that account. Yet Mr. Clerkson(i) tells us, that we ought to be cautious of charging one another with Schism for such things wherein the ancient Churches are like to be involved in the same Condemnation. As tho ancient Churches had any thing parallel to the case of our Dis∣senters, or indeed any other Church. Sure I am, that the instances alledged by Mr. Clerkson, are very wide of it; as I have shewed already. For we charge no other Churches with Schism, because they have not the same rites that we use; nor do we so much as condemn the Dissenters upon that account. But in this we charge them with Schism, that they have departed from the Communion of our Church upon the account of rites; and they indeed condemning us by their Separation upon that reason, do truly involve the ancient Churches in the same condition.

To make the end answer the beginning, Mr. Clerkson concludes with a manifest calum∣ny. Hereby, says he,(l) it appears, with what

judgment and charity some among us will have none to be true Churches, that want Diocesan Bishops; —they hereby blast all the Churches in the Apo∣stles times and the best Ages after, as no Churches.—Herein they are as wise and friendly, as if one to secure the height of his own Turret, should attempt to blow up all the Houses in the best part of the world; nay they blow up their own too. It is neither wise nor friendly to charge men with absurd opinions, of which neither they, nor perhaps any other were ever guilty. What witness, what evidence of this matter? What Books or conversation ever betrayed so great a weakness? I never yet heard of any man, who made it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under them. The Pa∣pists have several Bishops with a very small flock, and such as one Parish-Church may con∣tain. They have others who have not so much as one Congregation, nor perhaps one Christian within their Diocese. But we may guess at the men our Author intends; they indeed distinguish, with all the ancient Churches, between a Bishop and a Presbyter: But for the measure of Episcopal Churches, They willingly subscribe to S. Jerom's(m) judgment, that the Bishop of Eugubium is no less a Bishop than he of Rome; and the Bishop of Tanis is as much a Bishop as he of Alexandria; since it is not the greatness of the City, but the Or∣dination, that makes a Bishop. In the Primi∣tive

times and those next succeeding, the ex∣tent of Dioceses were very different. In Scythia(n) there was but one, though many Cities; and in some places there were Bishops in Villages. Some Cities had very large Territories belonging to their Bishops, others but small; yet all this while, these Bi∣shops accounted themselves all of equal autho∣rity, though their Dioceses might be very un∣equal; and never broke Communion upon that account. But if some Presbyters should at∣tempt then to separate from their Bishops, and to set up Altar against Altar; they incurred the censure(o) of all Christian Churches, and were shut out of Catholick Communion by universal consent. As to matter of fact, it is plain, that in the Primitive times there were no Churches without Bishops, such as were acknowledged different from Presbyters. And Ignatius(p) is bold to say, that without a Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, it cannot be called a Church. But as for those who separate from their Bishops, whose doctrin they acknowledge to be sound, and set up Churches, and make Ordinations in opposition to them, and the whole establishment of a National or Provin∣cial Church, These I shall not scruple to Un∣church; since in this I have not only the suf∣frage of antiquity, but the consent of all Pro∣testant Churches on my side.

In France, while the Reformed Religion stood there, if any departed from the established or∣der of those Churches, they were excommu∣nicated; and if they should attempt to set up separate Congregations, they would have been accounted no Churches.(q) How zealous they were of the Orders appointed in their Synods, will sufficiently appear from the case of Morelli, and the proceedings against him. Nor is it otherwise in Holland or Germany, or where-ever the Reformed Religion is re∣ceived; they unchurch all, who upon such frivolous pretences, as our Dissenters use against us, would leave their Communion.

By this notion of Primitive Episcopacy, Mr. Clerkson(r) thinks, that some mistakes concern∣ing Episcopal Ordinations, of ill consequence, may be rectified. A Bishop in the best ages was no other than the Pastor of a single Church; a Pastor of a single Congregation now, is as truly a Bishop. —Why they should not be esteemed to be duly ordained, who are set apart by a Pastor of a single Church now, I can discern no reason, after I have looked every way for it. It is the hard∣est thing in the world for some men to see a reason that makes against them; and the fear of finding it, makes them commonly look where they are not likely to meet it. How∣ever it does not seem to be so difficult a mat∣ter to assign a reason in the case proposed. It is not the being Pastor of one or many Con∣gregations,

that makes a Bishop, but the Or∣der. For a Presbyter may be the Pastor of a Congregation, and in the Primitive times there were many such; but this does not make him a Bishop. Nay, the Chorepiscopi were Pastors of many Congregations, and yet these were not Bishops. If these in ancient times should have proceeded upon Mr. Clerkson's grounds, and presumed to ordain Presbyters or Deacons or Bishops; the Church of those times would have made no difficulty to pronounce the Or∣dinations null. Ischyras pretended to be a Presbyter, because Colluthus had ordained him; but Athanasius represents it as monstrous, that one should esteem himself a Presbyter, who was ordained by one who died himself a Pres∣byter of the Church of Alexandria. Nor was Ischyras so absurd as to think, that the Ordi∣nation received from a simple Presbyter would be valid. For in Truth, that Colluthus was made a Bishop by Meletius, and his name is still in the Catalogue of his Ordinations; but renouncing his Schism, and those Orders, he was received into communion as Presbyter; for so he was before he joyned with Meletius, and in that degree he died. Nor can I find in all Antiquity, any one instance of Pres∣byters making Ordinations without a Bishop: nay, the Hereticks and Schismaticks of old, among all their irregularities, are not charged by any of this presumption. In the Diocese of Alexandria there were many Presbyters, who were the Pastors of single Congregati∣ons; and so it was in most of the ancient Dio∣ceses, as we have shewed before. In the Pro∣vince

of Scythia, there must be yet a greater number of such Parish Pastors. Yet none of these are found to have claimed any right to ordain: and if any of them should have pre∣sumed against the rule of the Church in that particular, the Church of those times would not only have declared the Ordination null, but a prodigy, and think that Antichrist was at hand, and the world drawing towards an end, when such new and unexampled confu∣sions were permitted to arise. What sentence shall we think, would they have pronounced upon Presbyterian Ordinations, when they did not stick(s) to rescind Orders conferred by Bishops against the Canons and established discipline of the Church; and in some cases to(t) re-ordain? Aerius, who declared there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, is represented by Epiphanius(u) as a prodigy, and his opinion madness, though there is no mention at all of his Ordinations.

But the case of the Ordinations of our Dis∣senters is peculiar; and they do forreign Churches great wrong, when they concern them in their quarrel. For first, the Indepen∣dents have no root of Orders, but their Pastors are of Lay Original extraction. The Pres∣byterians have Ordination from Presbyters, not only without, but in opposition to Bi∣shops,

against all the established rules of this Church, against the Laws of the Country, as well as practice of ancient Churches. And if upon this account we pronounce them void, we do no more than what all the Protestant Churches abroad would do in the like case. If some Deacons or Lay-men would take up∣on them to ordain Pastors in the French Churches, for separate Congregations, in op∣position to the received discipline, setled in their general Synods; I would appeal to any Minister of those Churches, whether he held such an Ordination valid. And yet by the principles of those Churches, Lay-men may confer orders in some cases, as appears(x) by the first Ordination in Paris, where there was no Presbyter present; and by the con∣fession of Beza(y) in the Conference of Poissy. Nay though a Presbyter deposed by their Sy∣nod, should take upon him to ordain; I still appeal to the Ministers of those Churches, whether they would account the Orders valid. If we therefore do judge such Ordinations here, to be nullities, because administred by subor∣dinate Officers, against the Laws of the Church, in opposition to their superiours, and against the practice and discipline of the Primitive Christians; we cannot be thought singular in this judgment: since all ancient Churches would have done the same thing, and all the Prote∣stant Churches in Europe, in the like case, would

follow our example. It is in vain to cite Jerom and Chrysostom, to lessen the difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, because both may do almost all the same things. Yet is Ordination still excepted, and account∣ed the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop. And though in some Churches, Presbyters did assist the Bishop in ordaining Presbyters, which is likewise the practice of our Church; yet is there no instance of their ordaining without a Bishop.

Notes

• (a)

  Prim. ep. p. 110, 111.
• (b)

  Cic. Or. contr. Rull.
• (c)

  Procop. Vand. l. 2.
• (d)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eu∣seb. H. l. 7. c. 11.
• (e)

  Ji qui in Suburbijs illis manebant, non cogebantur ad majoris Ecclesiae conven∣tus accedere. Vales. Anot.
• (f)

  Hieron. adv. Joh. Hierosol.
• (g)

  Prim. ep. p. 111.
• (h)

  Strab. l. 17.
• (i)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. Presb. Libell. apud Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. Strab. l. 17.
• (l)

  Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 793.
• (m)

  Prim. ep. p. 112.
• (n)

  Prim. ep. p. 113.
• (o)

  Prim. ep. p. 113.
• (p)

  Jos. 21.2.
• (q)

  Jos. 21.
• (r)

  Prim. ep. p. 114.
• (s)

  Strab. l. 10.
• (t)

  Plin. l. 4. c. 12.
• (u)

  Centum urbibus, sicut perhibent, qui prodigi lingua largiti sunt. Solin. Polyb. c. 17.
• (x)

  Prim. ep. p. 114.
• (y)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 13.
• (z)

  Prim. ep. p. 114.
• (a)

  Prim. ep. p. 115.
• (b)

  Prim. ep. p. 115.
• Amasea. Ponti.
• (c)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 12.
• (d)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. ibid.
• (a)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id.
• Cyzicus.
• (b)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. de vit. sua. p. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Liban. Antioch.
• Antioch
• (d)

  Strab. l. 16. Theod. ep. 42.
• (e)

  Liban. Antioch. p. 339.
• (f)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. Rel. Hist. in Julian.
• (g)

  Str. l. 16.
• (h)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodor. vit. Sim. Prisci.
• Thebes.
• (i)

  Dicaearch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 167.
• (l)

  Dio. Chrys. Orat. 46.
• Athens. Lacedae∣mon.
• (m)

  Arist. Polit. l. 2.
• (n)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Polyb. Hist. l. 4. p. 468.
• (o)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Herodot. l. 6.
• (p)

  Dio. Chrys. Or. 46.
• (q)

  Herodian. l. 3. ss. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Xi∣phil. in Severo.
• (r)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dio. Chris. Or. 35.
• (s)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 16.
• (t)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (u)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 16.
• Mantua and Cre∣mona.
• (x)

  Usque ad eum locum Octavianus Musca perticam militarem porrexerat. Limitator ab Augusto datus, i. e. per quindecim millia passuum agri Mantuani, cum Cremo∣nensis non sufficeret. Serv. in Virg. Eclog. 9.
• (y)

  Cum jussus tria milla passus a muro in diversa re∣linquere ut octingentos passus aquae qua circumdata est, admetireris. Or. Corn. in Alphen. apud Serv. in Eclog. 9.
• (z)

  Termini nunquam ambiguum receperant circa ip∣sum oppidum, sed extra tertium milliarium Lex Caesariana operata est. Comment. Claud. Caes. de Colonijs. Ed. Rigalt.
• Bononia
• (a)

  Tria millia hominum sunt deducta, Equit. 70 ju∣gera, caeteris 50. Liv. l. 37.
• (b)

  Sigon. de Antiq. Jure. Ital. l. 1. Onuphr. Descript. Imp. Rom. l. 3. Liv. l. 34. Strab. l. 6. Apustio autore, tertia pars agri adempta.
• (c)

  Liv. l. 31.
• (d)

  Sigon. de Antiq. Jur. Ital. l. 1. Liv. l. 39. & 40.
• (e)

  Nec tantum terrae occupaverunt quod colere potuis∣sent, sed quantum in spe colendi reservavere. Sicul. Flav. de Condit. Agr. p. 3. Ed. Rigalt.
• (f)

  Pausan. Achaic. p. 429. 431. 440. 441.
• (g)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 10.
• (h)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sct. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 4.
• (i)

  Nam omnis Civitas Helvetia in quatuor Pagos divisa est — hic Pagus unus, &c. Caes. de Bell. Gall. l. 1.
• (l)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strab. l. 14.
• (m)

  Tria erant urbium spacia, maenia, pomaeria, Ter∣ritoria, 1. Muris. 2. Vicinia Murorum, ultima jurisdicti∣one civitatum fimebantur. Gotofred. in l. 5. de legat. fund. Cod. Th.
• (n)

  Agri autem nomine non Castella tantum, verum etiam Municipia, & Coloniae solent vocari extra Civi∣tatem, quae caput & quasi mater caeterarum. Aug. de Consens. Evang. l. 3. c. 24.
• (o)

  Territorium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gloss. vet.
• (p)

  Autor. de Re Agr. Ed. Rigalt.
• (q)

  Aquensis autem Episcopus habeat praesatam Civi∣tatem & omnia ejus Castella & Territoria & Ecclesias. Nov. 11.
• (r)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arist. Pol. l. 7. c. ••.
• (s)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (s)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dio. Chrys. Or. 30.
• (t)

  Frontin. de limit. Agr. p. 57.
• (u)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Ap. 34.
• (x)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Nicen. 8.
• (y)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Antioch. 9.
• (z)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Antioch. 10.
• (a)

  Diaconus regens plebem. Can. Eliber. 77.
• (b)

  Basil. ep. 192.
• (c)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. ep. 42.
• (d)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. l. 7. c. 3.
• (e)

  Basil. ep. 73.
• (f)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synes. ep. 11.
• (h)

  Theod. ep. 42.
• (i)

  Theod. ep. 113.
• (l)

  No evid. of Dioc. Ep. p. 39.
• (m)

  Quos secutus Theodoretus Papae suggessit, quanta mala pertulerit, — rogans ut tali causae sub∣veniretur. Liber. Brev. c. 12.
• (n)

  Constat. ex ep. p. 113, 116. Garner. in Liber. p. 83.
• (o)

  No evid. of Dioc. p. 39.
• (p)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. ep. 16.
• (q)

  Act. Conciliab. Ephes.
• (r)

  Hypomnest. Theodoreti ad. Alexand. Metrop. ep. 34. Ed. Garnerij. ad Alexand. Prov. Euphr. Metrop. ep. 68. ut ubicunque jubeas conveniamus. Theod. ep. 81. ep. 82. Omnes enim & ut Patrem & Dominum revere∣mur. ep. 89
• (s)

  Licet enim instar capitis in omnibus nos prae∣cellas. Ep. 84.
• (t)

  Commagena nunc Euphra∣tensis clementer adsurgit; Hierapoli vetere Nino, & Samosata, civitatibus amplis illustris. l. 14. c. 8.
• (u)

  Theod. ep. 94. 161. Ed. Lupi.
• (x)

  Miraeus. Not. Episc. l. 3. p. 142.
• (y)

  No evid. of Dioc. p. 27.
• (z)

  Ecce interim Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi convenite. Aug. ep. 68. Ed. Frob.
• (a)

  Ad Paraeciam Hipponensis Ecclesiae pertinebat.
• (b)

  Vos modo conveniatis qui eorum Conventionem ante. Ep. 68.
• (c)

  No evid. of Dioc. p. 29.
• (d)

  Aug. ep. ad Marcellin. 159.
• (d)

  Germanicenses ad curam humilitatis nostrae per∣tinent. Aug. ep. 251. Ed. Bened.
• (f)

  Visitandarum Ecclesiarum ad meam curam per∣tinentium necessitate profectus sum. Vide ep. 74, 212, 236.
• (g)

  Aug. ep. 48.
• (h)

  Greg. Naz. Carm. de viti sua.
• (i)

  Strab. l. 12.
• (l)

  Colligere feci Episcopos sub me constitutos, sunt enim duo. Ep. Capp. pr. ad Leon.
• (m)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bas. ep. 264.
• (n)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ep. 412.
• (o)

  Ep. 181.
• (p)

  Soz. l. 7. c. 27.
• (q)

  Philostorg. l. 10.
• (r)

  Soz. l. 5. c. 4.
• (s)

  Praedium autem quod dicitur Pasa, — duodecim milliarijs distat Tyanensis Metropoleos, & sub eadem Ci∣vitate est usque hodie. Ap. Conc. C. P. 2. Coll. 5.
• (t)

  Bas. ep. 88.
• (u)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Or. 19. in Patr.
• (x)

  Johannes Episc. totius Lesbi. Iren. Traged. Contest. quorund. Ep. sub 28.
• (y)

  Strab. l. 13.
• (z)

  Florentius Epis∣copus Lesbi, Tenedi, Prosilenes, Aegialorum, per Eu∣elpistum Chorepiscopum subscripsi. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1••.
• (a)

  Conc. Eph. par. 2. Act. 1.
• (b)

  Vetus mos viget in Provincijs Europae.—Olim & ab initio Ecclesias illas nunquam praedictae Civitates proprios Episcopos acceperunt. Conc. Ephes. par. 2. Act. 7.
• (c)

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 13.
• (d)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synes. Catast. p. 301.
• (e)

  Episcopum in aliquot Egypti urbes constituit. Eustych. Annat. p. 540.
• (f)

  Sozom. l. 6. c. 21. L. 9. c. 17.
• (g)

  Sozom. l. 5. c. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. l. 6. c. 32.
• (h)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soz. l. 9. c. 17. l. 6. c. 32. 7. 29.
• (i)

  Sancti itaque Provinciae nostrae Episcopi, conveni∣entes in unum. Conc. Chalc. P. 3.
• (l)

  Strab. l. 12.
• (m)

  Plin. l. 6. c. 2.
• (n)

  Greg. Nyss. Or. in 40. Mart.
• (o)

  Ep. Synod. Pont. Polem. Conc. Chalc. P. 3.
• (p)

  Plin. l. 6. c. 3. Ptolom. l. 5.
• (q)

  Conc. Ephes. Act. 7. ep. Synod.
• (r)

  Nostrum omnium Sacerdotum &c. Ep. Synod. Epir. vet.
• (s)

  Tractatum habentes omnes Episcopi in vestra Epiro constituti. Ep. Synod. ep. Nor.
• (t)

  Ubb. Emmius descript. Graec.
• (u)

  Conc. Chalced. Act. 6. Ed. Labb. ep. Synod. ad Leon.
• (x)

  Geogr. Disquis. touching Asia l. 4. p. 23.
• (y)

  Conc. Chalced. Act. 6.
• (z)

  Regnorum vi∣ces multa in hac Divisione immutarunt. Sed Status Ec∣clesiasticus, tam in oriente quam in occidente ejus, integra vestigia hactenus retinuit. Not. Gal. ap. Duchesne. p. 28. T. 1.
• (a)

  Id. p. 29.
• (b)

  Si uspiam alibi in Gallia cer∣te videre licet, Provincias & Diaeceses Episcopales — per Christianos primum institut. Marg. Not. ep. p. 10.
• (c)

  Pap. Masson. Not. ep. Franc. ap. Duchesn. T. 1. p. 57.
• (d)

  Id. p. 61.
• (e)

  Potuerunt ab initio binae civitates, ab uno regi Pontifice, &c. Bucher. Belg. Rom. l. 8. c. 15.
• (f)

  Buch. Belg. Rom. l. 8. c. 10.
• (g)

  Selden in Eutych Orig. p. 83. 84. 85.
• (h)

  Epiph. Haeres. 66. n. 13.
• (i)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eus. H. l 7. c. 24.
• (m)

  Euseb. H. l. 2. c. 16.
• (n)

  Id. l. 5. c. 9.
• (o)

  Id. l. 6. c. 2.
• (p)

  Id. l. 6. c. 35.
• (q)

  Eus. H. l. 7. c. 26.
• (r)

  Id. l. 8. c. 13.
• (s)

  Id. l. 7. c. 32.
• (t)

  Prim. ep. 116.
• (u)

  Prim. ep. p. 117.
• (x)

  Hieron. de Loc. Hebr.
• (y)

  Hieron. de Loc. Hebr. in Eschemo.
• (z)

  Prim. ep. p. 117.
• (a)

  Prim. ep. p. 119.
• (b)

  Aug. Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.
• (c)

  Prim. ep. p. 121.
• (d)

  Nec nos per caemiteria diversa constitutis Presby∣teris destinamus. Et Presbyteri eorum Consecrandorum jus habeant. Innoc. ad Decent. Prim. ep. p. 122.
• (e)

  Usher's Relig. of the Irish. p. 83.
• (f)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g)

  Prim. ep. p. 123.
• (h)

  Acts 11.22.
• (i)

  Peripl. p. 92.
• (l)

  Ptol. l. 2.
• (m)

  Bed. H. E. l. 1. c. 1.
• (n)

  Hieron. Cont. Lucif.
• (o)

  Prim. ep. p. 191.
• (p)

  Quae exempta de fasce multarum, sola meruit ho∣norem Episcopatus suscipere. Can. 46.
• (q)

  Prim. ep. p. 191.
• (r)

  Socr. l. 3. c. 6. 9. Soz. l. 7. c. 15.
• (s)

  Prim. ep. p. 192.
• (t)

  Prim. ep. p. 192.
• (u)

  Not. Graec. Leon. in Append. Geogr. Sacr.
• (x)

  Conc. C. P. sub Menna. Act. 2.
• (y)

  Prim. ep. p. 197.
• (z)

  Chrys. in Act. 3. p. 655. Ed. Savil.
• (a)

  Prim. ep. p. 203, 204.
• (b)

  Chrys. in Heb. Hom. 34.
• (c)

  Chrys. in Joh. Hom. 86.
• (d)

  Chrys. in Tit. Or. 1. p. 384.
• (e)

  Prim. ep. p. 217.
• (f)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• (g)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h)

  Bas. l. de Sp. S. c. 30. p. 225.
• (i)

  Prim. ep. p. 223.
• (l)

  Prim. ep. p. 226.
• (m)

  Ep. ad Evagr.
• (n)

  Soz. l. 7. c. 19.
• (o)

  Can. Ant. 5.
• (p)

  Ign. Ep. ad Tra••.
• (q)

  Hist: Eccles. de Bez. T. 2. l. 6.
• (r)

  Prim. Ep. p. 23••.
• (s)

  Can. Nic. 9, 10, 16. Can. Ant. 73.
• (t)

  Nic. Can. 19.
• (u)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3.
• (x)

  Hist. Eccles. T. 1. l. 2.
• (y)

  Hist. Eccles. T. 1. l. 4.