may seem hypercritical to call attention to it. Yet, if we observe the cumulative effect; how a slight assumption here, and a faint innuendo there, in one place a doubt, in another a sneer, on one side a concealment, and on the other an exaggeration, all work quietly, and consistently, towards a pre-determined end: if we notice the plan of all this, we shall understand how it is that color has so much to do with the work of the historian. We shall see also how necessary it is, when historians color highly, to be on our guard against them: the more especially, as authorities are referred to only for facts and dates, hardly ever for the details of coloring and arrangement.

And this is the entire aim of our present article. With regard to Dean Milman and his history, as a whole, we do not wish to leave the impression, that the passages we have criticised are samples of his best manner, or that he often deals as unfairly as in the cases of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril. On the contrary, we believe we have chosen about the worst instances; and, though we have by no means exhausted these instances, for in our analysis of his St. Cyril we have not reached the point where his bias most appears*-yet we have purposely presented what we consider gross and decided faults. We might give scores of instances, in which Milman colors perhaps too highly, but yet with commendable impartiality. We might mention many others, in which a bias is perceptible, but yet so slight, that we should despair of our ability to analyze and expose it. It is easy enough to correct facts and dates: but to achromatize a statement, to separate the truth contained in it from the false philosophy with which it may be suffused, is a most difficult, tedious, disagreeable and thankless operation.

In short, we wish it to be understood, that we have not reviewed Milman in this Article, or Milman's works: we have merely availed ourselves of a well-known writer, who in many respects deservedly stands high, to call attention to a fault which he has in common with many others even more distinguished, and from which history has suffered more, perhaps, than is generally imagined. We have indited, in fact, a caution rather than a Review.

* We refer to his treatment of the Nestorian controversy-a thorough exposé of which would need a small volume.

ART. II.-SIZE OF APOSTOLIC AND ANTE-NICENE DIOCESES.

THE subject of Small Dioceses has already been discussed in this Review in a variety of ways, and has been viewed from various points of observation. Arguments from history and experience, ancient and modern, and from the nature of the Episcopal Office, have been adduced in support of the advantages supposed to arise from Small Dioceses. We propose, in the present Article, to discuss more fully than has heretofore been done, at least in the public press, whether weekly or quarterly, the size of Dioceses in the strictly Apostolic or post-Apostolic Church, and then to inquire what lessons we may learn for our guidance at the present day in reference to the same matter.

In the very outset of this discussion, therefore, it becomes necessary to ascertain what really was the size of the Primitive Dioceses. Although there exists a vague impression that they were comparatively small, there is a great difference of opinion as to their real extent. It is indeed a matter of considerable difficulty to determine this, with exactness. This difficulty has a three-fold source. 1. The scantiness of the early records of the Church. 2. The fact that the Sees were called after the chief city, and even when they are named, we have no mention of the amount of surrounding country under their jurisdiction. 3. To add still more to our perplexity, many cities are, by different writers, called by different names, as in the notable instances of Byzantium, afterwards called Constantinople, and Jerusalem, called afterwards, Ælia. Of such changes in nomenclature, we cannot conclude that history always informs us. When we consider the numerous cities called after the different Roman Emperors, we cannot rationally suppose that they all sprang into existence during the reigns of those whom they commemorate. Many, beside those few of which history contains the record of the time and occasion of the change, must have been cities previously existing, whose names were altered

out of compliment to the reigning Emperor. But, even when their situations are described with sufficient minuteness to determine almost their precise position, it is oftentimes difficult to say which of the neighboring villages may have been thus honored; or whether, in the particular instance under consideration, the city may not have been really a new one, and though very near some old city, yet far enough distant not to have swallowed up its population and the previously existing Episcopate.

I. To gain a clear conception of the extent of ancient Dioceses, these difficulties must in some way be obviated. If this be not done at the beginning, they will throw much obscurity and doubt upon our conclusions, and leave at last only the same vague impression with which we began.

1. The first difficulty arises from the scantiness of early records. If it were necessary, in order to show the extent of early Dioceses, to have a complete enumeration of them throughout the world, this would be fatal. It is sufficient, however, to obtain a record of scattered groups of Dioceses. And if, whenever we can in a degree approaching completeness fill out the list of Episcopal Sees in a Province, we find a certain rule as to limit prevail, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, it is a fair presumption, that that was the general rule. At least it shows what must have been the rule under ordinary circumstances, and in those places where the Church attained sufficient strength and influence to leave its traces distinctly upon the pages of civil history. One remarkable group of this kind we have at a very early period. The Seven Churches, each with its Angel or Bishop, to which St. John addressed the seven Epistles of the Apocalypse, were all in Asia Proconsularis. To three of them, St. Ignatius also addresses Epistles, in which he mentions particularly their own Bishops. In addition to these, we have two other Epistles of St. Ignatius, to Churches within the same region, not included in the foregoing. All of these nine Churches were in the single Province of Asia Proconsularis, a district rather smaller than the Diocese of New York, and each had its own Bishop. This is not the only group of the kind, as will appear when we

come to the actual discussion of the size of ancient Dioceses. It will be sufficient to show that, while, if we were seeking an exact enumeration of all the Dioceses in the world, our first difficulty would be an effectual barrier, for at least the first two centuries, yet in the matter of ascertaining the ordinary limits of Dioceses, that objection is really no material hindrance. Even if the list of Sees were complete, their number would oblige us to make a selection of particular Provinces, to give clearness to the argument. The fact, that certain Provinces have already been selected for us by the records of history, rather strengthens the case. If the selection were made by ourselves, it might be supposed to have been so arranged as unduly to favor the conclusion at which we arrive. But when all the evidence extant is examined,—and, without exception, in every region, where it is not manifestly meagre and incapable of sustaining any conclusion, it favors the one at which we have arrived,-we are bound to receive it as the rule which guided the ancient Church in assigning the limits of a Bishop's jurisdiction.

Another consideration, if indeed anything more can be wanted for doing away with the force of the first difficulty, is the fact, that Episcopal Sees were permanent, and, when we find any mentioned, though for the first time directly, there may be, and frequently are, strong reasons connected with the condition of that Church, or the civil history of the cities, to make us confident that they had existed as Sees for fifty or one hundred years, or even longer. This, however, will be more fully considered hereafter, when we come to discuss the dependence to be placed upon the later notitiæ, as evidence to infer the previous condition of affairs.

2. A second difficulty in assigning the exact limits of Dioceses arises from the fact, that the entire jurisdiction of the Bishop was named from the chief city, so that, in but very few cases, if any, we are able to determine exact boundaries. If the question were, to settle the limits of any one particular Diocese, this would indeed constitute an insurmountable obstacle. When, however, we know the number of Dioceses in any Province, we may readily ascertain their average extent,

without assigning to them special territory. The average extent is the very object at which we are aiming. The difficulty, which some have felt, thus falls entirely to the ground. If it be desired to assign boundaries, there would not, probably, be much error in following the natural divisions of the country into vallies, along which the ordinary intercourse of men would most readily extend.

3. A third difficulty in ascertaining the number of ancient Dioceses, arises from the circumstance of the same city having been called by different names, not only by different writers, but sometimes even by the same author. To be at all accurate, this must be carefully guarded against, especially when the later notitia are made use of, for it is not at all uncommon for the same city to be enumerated twice, under different names, in the same notitia. Whoever has examined the extended lists of Dioceses, which Bingham gives in his Antiquities of the Christian Church, cannot but be struck with the frequency with which he corrects in this point the authorities to whom he refers. We cannot, however, for our present purpose, rely wholly upon even Bingham's amended notitia. No doubt, in his extended research, he had made himself fully acquainted with all that could be learned in reference to each See. But, notwithstanding, in the case of some it would still be doubtful whether they were not different names for those already enumerated. The purpose, for which Bingham mainly introduces these lists of Dioceses, obliged him to include all the doubtful ones; whereas our purpose obliges us with equal necessity to exclude them. Bingham is bringing evidence to show, that the Dioceses were so large, that they must necessarily have embraced more than one congregation, arguing against the theory of Congregational Episcopacy. Of course, by including doubtful Sees, the average would be the smallest possible, and if, even then, a Bishop must have presided over more than a single congregation, his conclusion is the stronger. We are to show that ancient Dioceses were very small, compared with modern. If, then, we omit all doubtful Sees, and enumerate only those which can be clearly identified as distinct, the average extent will thereby be made larger. And if, notwithstanding this