their bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions, even by the decree of the apostles themselves, and the doctrine of Ignatius, and the constitution of St. Clement, of the fathers in the council of Arles, Ancyra, and Toledo, and many others: the bishops were declared to be judges in ordinary of the clergy and people of their diocese, by the concurrent suffrages of almost two thousand holy fathers, assembled in Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, in Carthage, Antioch, Sardis, Aquileia, Taurinum, Agatho, and by the emperor, and by the apostles; and all this attested by the constant practice of the bishops of the primitive church inflicting censures upon delinquents, and absolving them as they saw cause, and by the dogmatical resolution of the old catholics, declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the episcopal function, that they have supreme and universal spiritual power, (viz. in the sense above explicated,) over all the clergy and laity of the diocese; as, "That they are higher than all power, the image of God, the figure of Christ, Christ's vicar, president of the church, prince of priests, of authority incomparable, unparalleled power," and many more. If all this be witness enough of the superiority of episcopal jurisdiction, we have their depositions, we may proceed as we see cause for, and reduce our episcopacy to the primitive state, for that is truly a reformation, " Id Dominicum quod primum, id hæreticum quod posterius ;" and then we shall be sure episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations.

SECTION XLIII.

Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations, or
Parishes.

BUT against the cause it is objected 'super totam materiam;' that bishops were not diocesan, but parochial; and therefore of so confined a jurisdiction, that perhaps our village or citypriests shall advance their pulpit, as high as the bishop's throne.

Well! Put case they were not diocesan but parish-bishops,

what then? yet they were such bishops as had presbyters and deacons in subordination to them, in all the particular advantages of the former instances.

2. If the bishops had the parishes, what cure had the priests? so that this will debase the priests as much as the bishops; and if it will confine a bishop to a parish, it will make that no presbyter can be so much as a parish-priest. If it brings a bishop lower than a diocese, it will bring the priest lower than a parish. For set a bishop where you will, either in a diocese or a parish, a presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination, the same distance still. So that this objection, upon supposition of the former discourse, will no way mend the matter for any side, but make it far worse; it will not advance the presbytery, but it will depress the whole hierarchy, and all the orders of Holy Church.

But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of episcopacy, I will consider it in little; and besides that it does no body any good advantage, I will represent it in its fucus, and show the falsehood of it.

1. Then it is evident that there were bishops before there were any distinct parishes: for the first division of parishes in the West was by Evaristus, who lived almost one hundred years after Christ, and divided Rome into seven parishes, assigning to every one a presbyter. So Damasus reports of him in the pontifical book: "Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit presbyteris, et septem diaconos ordinavit, qui custodirent episcopum, prædicantem propter stylum veritatis:" "He divided the parishes or titles in the city of Rome to presbyters." The same also is, by Damasus, reported of Dionysius, in his life: "Hic presbyteris ecclesias divisit, et cœmiteria, parochiasque, et dioceses constituit." Marcellus increased the number in the year 305. "Hic fecit cœmiterium viâ Salariâ, et viginti-quinque titulos in urbe Româ constituit quasi dioceses propter baptismum, et pœnitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex paganis, et propter sepulturas martyrum :" "He made a sepulture or cemetery for the burial of martyrs, and appointed twenty-five titles or parishes" but he adds, quasi dioceses,'' as it had been dioceses,' that is, distinct and limited to presbyters, as dioceses were to bishops; and the use of parishes, which he subjoins, clears the business; for he appointed them only

1

propter baptismum, et pœnitentiam multorum et sepulturas," "for baptism, and penance, and burial;" for as yet there was no preaching in parishes, but in the mother church. Thus it was in the West.

But in Egypt we find parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these; for Eusebius reports out of Philo, that the Christians in St. Mark's time had several churches in Alexandria. "Etiam de ecclesiis quæ apud eos sunt, ita dicit. Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus a " &c. But even before this there were bishops; for in Rome there were four bishops, before any division of parishes, though St. Peter be reckoned for none. And before parishes were divided in Alexandria, St. Mark himself, who did it, was the bishop, and before that time St. James was bishop of Jerusalem, and in divers other places where bishops were, there were no distinct parishes of a while after Evaristus's time; for when Dionysius had assigned presbyters to several parishes, he writes of it to Severus, bishop of Corduba, and desires him to do so too in his diocese, as appears in his epistle to him.

For indeed necessity required it, when the Christians multiplied and grew to be μέγιστος καὶ ἀναρίθμητος λαὸς, as Cornelius called the Roman Christians, a great and an innumerable people ;' and did' implere omnia,' as Tertullian's phrase is, filled all places:' and public and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves, and increased jealousies in others, and their public offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage,―then they were forced to divide congregations, and assigned several presbyters to their cure, in subordination to the bishop, and so we see the elder Christianity grew, the more parishes there were. At first, in Rome there were none, Evaristus made seven, Dionysius made some more, and Marcellus added twenty-five, and in Optatus's time there were forty c.

Well, then! the case is thus: Parishes were not divided at first; therefore, to be sure, they were not of Divine institution. Therefore, it is no Divine institution that a

a Lib. ii. Hist. c. 17.

b Apud Binium, tom. i. Concil. Euseb. lib. vi. c. 43. Apolog. c. 37.
Lib. ii. contra Parmeniam.

presbyter should be fixed upon a parish; therefore, also, a parish is not, by Christ's ordinance, an independent body; for, by Christ's ordinance, there was no such thing at all, neither absolute nor in dependence neither; and then for the main issue, since bishops were before parishes, in the present sense, the bishops, in that sense, could not be parochial.

But which was first, a private congregation or a diocese ? If a private congregation, then a bishop was at first fixed in a private congregation, and so was a parochial bishop. If a diocese was first, then the question will be, how a diocese could be without parishes, for what is a diocese but a jurisdiction over many parishes?

I answer, it is true that diocese and parish are words used now in contradiction; and now a diocese is nothing but the multiplication of many parishes: "Sed non fuit sic ab initio;" for at first, a diocese was 'the city and the regio suburbicaria,' the neighbouring towns;' in which there was no distinction of parishes: that which was a diocese in the secular sense, that is, a particular province or division of secular prefecture, that was the assignation of a bishop's charge. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea, were xɛpαλai dioinnoɛws, “heads of the diocese,” saith Pliny, meaning in respect of secular jurisdiction; so they were in ecclesiastical regiment. And it was so upon great reason, for when the regiment of the church was extended just so as the regiment of the commonwealth, it was of less suspicion to the secular power, while the church-regiment was just fixed together with the political, as if of purpose to show their mutual consistence, and its own subordination. And besides this, there was in it a necessity; for the subjects of another province or diocese could not, either safely or conveniently, meet where the duty of the commonwealth did not engage them; but being all of one prefecture and diocese, the necessity of public meetings, in order to the commonwealth, would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom. And this, which at first was a necessity in this case, grew to be a law in all, by the sanction of the council

d Lib. v. c. 29. et 30. Vide Baron. A. D. 39. n. 10. et B. Rhenan. in Notit. Provinc. Imperial. in Descript. Illyrici.

of Chalcedon, and of Constantinople in Trullo, Toïs tomτικοῖς καὶ δημοσίοις τύποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων ἡ τάξις ἀκολουθείτω "Let the order of the church follow the order and guise of the commonwealth ;" viz. in her regiment and prefecture.

But in the modern sense of this division, a bishop's charge was neither a parish nor a diocese, as they are taken in relation; but a bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians, which he, by himself or his presbyters, had converted, and he also had the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the country. So that although he had not all the diocese actually in communion and subjection, yet his charge, his diocese, was so much. Just as it was with the apostles, to whom Christ gave all the world for a diocese ; yet at first they had but a small congregation, that did actually obey them.

And now to the question: Which was first, a particular congregation or a diocese? I answer, that a diocese was first; that is, the apostles had a charge, before they had a congregation of converts; and St. Mark was sent bishop to Alexandria by St. Peter, before any were converted. But, ordinarily, the apostles, when they had converted a city or nation, then fixed bishops upon their charge, and there, indeed, the particular congregation was before the bishop's taking of the diocese; but, then, this city or nation, although it was not the bishop's diocese before it was a particular congregation, yet it was part of the apostles' diocese, and this they concredited to the bishops respectively.

St. Paul was ordained, by the prophets at Antioch, apostle of the uncircumcision; all the Gentiles was his diocese, and even of those places he then received power, which, as yet, he had not converted. So that, absolutely, a diocese was before a particular congregation. But if a diocese be taken collectively, as now it is, for a multitude of parishes united under one bishop, then one must needs be before twenty, and a particular congregation before a diocese; but then that particular congregation was not a parish, in the present sense, for it was not a part of a diocese, taking a diocese for a collection of parishes; but that particular congregation was