to be henceforward conducted by a Mayor, with two Boards of Aldermen and of Councilmen, elected by different constituencies. The mention of this arrangement would imply that it was something novel or peculiar.

We argue the same thing from the testimony of Epiphanius in regard to the ecclesiastical constitution of the city of Alexandria, in the fourth century.

"He notices it as an arrangement peculiar to the city of Alexandria, that there, various smaller churches and congregations were entrusted to the care of presbyters whom the bishop appointed."* If this had been the universal, or even the ordinary custom, whence the propriety of affirming it explicitly, of Alexandria? The readers of Epiphanius, on this supposition, knew of no other arrangement for the churches in large cities. They would have taken for granted the prelatical constitution, as much as any well-informed man would now, in relation to the great cities of England. That Epiphanius should have expressly mentioned this fact, is evidence at least that such an arrangement was not universal in his day, nor even common.

If it is alleged that the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, and of other large cities, as bishop, extended over a considerable region outside the walls, including numerous towns and villages with their presbyters, we reply that the evidence of Christian antiquity contradicts this idea. The towns and villages in the neighborhood of large cities had bishops of their own: Gabbus as much as Antioch; Emmaus as well as Jerusalem; Fidenae no less than Rome. On this point Bingham is excellent evidence against himself. He furnishes us a list of some fifteen hundred "Episcopal sees," as he delights to call them; some of which were places so obscure as to be wholly unrecognizable; while many that are identified, were country villages, or small towns in the near neighborhood of large cities. "The ante-Nicene law-we quote from the highest authority on this subject living, or that perhaps ever lived— exhibits every town, that is to say, every place which is not a

*Neander's Chrysostom, second period. "oai éxxλnoiai τys xudoλixys ἐκκλησίας ἐν Αλεξανδρια ύπο ένα αρχιεπισκοπον ούσαι και κατ' ἰδιαν ταύταις πιτεταγμένοι εἰσι πρεσβύτεροι δια τας εκκλησίστικας χρείας των οικητόρων.” Epiphan. de Arian. hæres. 69.

mere villa-estate with peasants round it, the origin of our village-as a church, presided over by a bishop and a board of elders (presbyters). But at the same time it represents the bishops (not the congregations,) of the smaller places as clustered round the bishop of the large town or city which was their natural metropolis."

We ask particular attention to this statement of the Chevalier Bunsen, both for its assertion of the universality of a parochial episcopacy in the ante-Nicene period, and also for its exhibiting the true relation between the country and the city bishops. As bishops, the latter had no more power than the former. Each was limited to his own congregation. All bishops under the Episcopal system are intrinsically independent of each other, (Autoxspañol) and possessed of equal powers. Of course, no city bishop as such, could pretend to exercise jurisdiction over his episcopal brethren of the country parishes around.* The only power, by virtue of which he exercised any jurisdiction outside the city, was Archi-episcopal; and this was attached only to the metropolis of each province. The province of Palestina Prima for example, of which Jerusalem was the metropolis, is represented by Bingham as containing twentynine "dioceses;" among which are the little towns of Lydda, Majuma, and Emmaus. Now as bishops, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Bishop of Emmaus were on a footing of perfect equality; their votes counted alike in any Synod; but the Bishop of Jerusalem was ex-officio metropolitan of the province, and so ecclesiastical superior to all the others. That within his own "diocese" he was anything more than chief pastor of a single congregation, even Bingham does not pretend to bring a particle of evidence.

It remains to show that at the same period to which we have now been referring, diocesan Episcopacy had no existence in the "rural districts" of the Roman Empire.

And here it should be observed, that what is claimed by Episcopal writers to have been a diocese, was not called a

* We refer here distinctly to the ante-Nicene period, and leave out of view that subsequent legislation by which the metropolitans succeeded in stripping the country bishops of equal powers. and finally superseding them altogether by a different class of officers.

diocese until the fourth century, but always a parish. According to the civil division of the Empire effected by Diocletian, each town or village with its suburbs, or the houses scattered around it within a limited distance, constituted a "parochia" or neighborhood. This had a municipal government of its own, consisting of the defensor civitatis or mayor, with a senatus or body of aldermen. If our "townships" were considerably more contracted, and were governed municipally by magistrates residing in the largest village, the "parish" would correspond to one of our townships. A certain number of these "parishes" constituted a "province" corresponding to our "county," and governed by a proconsul or praetor residing in the principal city. Several "provinces" constituted a civil "diocese,” governed by an eparch or vicar, or as he was sometimes called, Imperial Prefect.

To this civil arrangement the Church gradually adapted herself; and out of it grew, in due time, full developed Prelacy and Papacy; Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Popes.

The charge of a "bishop" then, in the third and fourth centuries was not called a diocese, but a parish; and it can be easily shown that, out of the great cities, it was a "parish" in fact, as well as in name; constituting but a single congregation, of which the bishop, with a body of elders had the spiritual oversight.

Let us take, by way of example, the Italian Diocese. It was divided into seventeen provinces. Each of these provinces contained a number of "parishes;" and each parish had its bishop. These parishes, it is pretended, were dioceses in the modern sense of the word, and each of these bishops was an Episcopal prelate. Let us put this to the test, taking Bingham himself as our guide.*

The Province of Tuscia and Umbria, lying between the Tiber and the Tuscan Sea, contained thirty-five "parishes;" Portus, Sylva Candida, Nipi, Aqua Viva, Phalaris, Ferentinum, Civita Vecchia, &c. How extensive was the diocese of the bishops of these places? How many congregations is it likely they had under their episcopal supervision? Ostia was a bishop's

see, at the mouth of the Tiber, about sixteen miles from Rome. Less than two miles from this was Portus Romanus, the first of the "bishopricks" just named. Evidently the Bishop of Portus could not travel very far in the direction of Ostia, without trespassing on his neighbor's diocese. But perhaps his jurisdiction extended largely in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, only two miles beyond resided the Bishop of Sylva Candida. It is clear, the Bishop of Portus Romanus had no need to keep a carriage. He could walk from end to end of his diocese, without finding it too much to sharpen his appetite for breakfast.

The "dioceses" of Phalaris and Hortanum were about nine miles apart; and between them lay the "diocese" of Nepi. The Bishop of Gabii could step over and call on his mitred brother of Lavici in his gown and slippers. The Bishops of Subaugusta, Tusculum, Velitrae and Signia, could drink tea together, and each walk back to sleep in his own episcopal parsonage in good time for bed. The Bishops of Minturnae, Suessa, Teanum and Calenum, could exchange pulpits on the Sabbath, and sleep at home both Saturday and Sunday nights, without making more than a reasonable Sabbath day's journey. The Province of Valeria contained twelve "dioceses:" Fidenae, Nomentum, Tibur, Praeneste, &c. The first of these lay but five miles from the gates of Rome. Going on four miles further, you entered on the boundaries of the Bishop of Nomentum; so that the "diocese" of the Bishop of Fidenae could have been but five or six miles across. From the church of the Bishop of Tibur to that of the Bishop of Praeneste was only four miles. The Bishops of Sabinum and Reate were still nearer neighbors; only three miles apart. The Bishops of Pitinum, Amiternum, and Furconium were nearer to each other than any three country "rectors," we venture to say, in the United States.

The credulity that can find "Episcopal bishops" in these pastors of neighboring country congregations, distances all comparison and confounds comment.

It is true that in other provinces of the Italian Diocese, such as Alpes Cottiae, and Rhetia Prima, the "parishes" were

larger, or rather, further apart. But this is only another mode of stating the fact, that in those rough and broken parts of the country, towns and villages were comparatively sparse. The same remark is to be made of various other parts of the empire. The fact that in Spain, Britain, Thrace, and parts of Asia Minor, we find "Bishops' sees" in the fourth century, twenty, thirty, or even fifty miles from each other is no evidence of diocesan Episcopacy. Because the Bishop of Mursa, in Illyricum, could travel fifty miles before reaching the residence of the Bishop of Cibalis, and perhaps as far in the opposite direction before finding another, Bingham concludes that his diocese must have covered at least fifty miles square. Whereas, the only warrantable conclusion is, that the population in that rude country was thin, and only in part converted to Christianity. There are good parochial bishops in Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri, who must ride from twenty-five to seventy-five miles to find a brother in the ministry, and perhaps a hundred and fifty or two hundred miles to attend a meeting of the Synod.

Let us bring the matter to another test. Our means of arriving at a precise knowledge of the population of ancient countries, are considerably limited. In the absence of any express census, we can only proceed upon general reasoning, with such particular facts as have incidentally come down to us. In general, there is sufficient reason to believe that with a few exceptions, like Northern Africa, Syria and Asia Minor, from which civilization has long since ebbed away, modern countries are more populous than the ancient were; the same countries more populous now than they were in the first centuries of Christianity. For this fact, reasons enough are at hand in the frequency and bloody character of ancient wars; the more frequent ravage of pestilential diseases; imperfect medical skill; imperfect knowledge of agriculture; the comparative absence of manufactures; and the degraded condition of a large part of the population.* Even the countries of southern Europe afflicted with those worst foes to national prosperity, a corrupt religion and a despotic government, are probably twice as populous, at least, as they were in the fifth century.

* Hume, on the Populousness of ancient Nations. Vol. ii. Essay xi.