Of the extent of the diocese attached to the bishopric of Rome, many learned men have given a description, from the ancient survey of provinces, but none is more accurate than that of Mr. Brerewood, who states, that "the ancient jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, consisted of all those provinces in the diocese of Italy, which the old lawyers term suburbicarias, of which there were ten,three islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and the other seven in the firm land of Italy, including all the narrow part of it, all Italy eastward, but on the west no farther than the river Megara (the limits of Tuscany), toward the Tyrrhene sea, and the river Esino, anciently Asius, toward the Adriatic sea."

decease, did the church want a head? did one of the apostles become head? who was it? upon what ground did he assume the headship, or who conferred it upon him? who ever acknowledged such thing, or where is there any record concerning it? was any person made head? if Clemens became head, then St. John, and other apostles were subject to one inferior to themselves; and what becomes of St. Paul's statement? "first, apostles, secondarily, prophets, thirdly, teachers," what do all the apostolical privileges amount to, if St. John was at the command of either Linus, Cletus, or Clemens, and became completely subservient to the bishop of Rome?

Thus, Ruffinus, in his translation of the Nicene canon, saith,That the bishop of Rome was authorised "Suburbicariarum ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerere," to superintend the Suburbicarian churches. And in all other places, the ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the lieutenants, from which it clearly appears, that the Suburbicarian region was the ancient boundary of the Roman see.

I proceed next to present the reader with a brief account of the method by which the bishops, immediately succeeding the apostles, preserved the unity of the church, not, as I shall shew, by ruling their respective churches, in subjection to one visible head, but by holding the same religious tenets and maintaining a friendly correspondence, and intercourse with each other.

St. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, from A. D. 67. to A. D. 107. In his writings, it no where appears, that the unity of the catholic church, consisted in subjection to the bishop of Rome. In his epistles, he extolls the dignity of

bishops to the highest pitch, and speaks of them as appointed unto the utmost bounds of the earth, but never once mentions the head of the catholic church. For the prevention of schisms he repeatedly exhorts christian converts to adhere to their orthodox bishops, but is totally silent with respect to the pretended centre of unity, in the successor of St. Peter.

The apostolic canons describe the state of the church, in very ancient times, though, they were not compiled during the lives of the apostles. In these, the ranks, duties, and privileges, of all ecclesiastical persons, are declared, yet they never give the least intimation of the superintendent of the whole church, or his prerogatives, or the respect due to him. They prescribe, that the priests and deacons, should do nothing without the consent of their bishop, for with him the people of God are entrusted, and of him an account of their souls will be demanded. They order, that the bishop of each province shall acknowledge him that is first among

them, (that is, their archbishop)* and esteem him as their head, and do nothing extraordinary without his consent, and that a bishop shall meddle only with those affairs that concern his own diocese, and also that the archbishop shall not do any thing, without

* Although the equality and independency of bishops were firmly believed and maintained in the three first centuries, yet it was found expedient for the sake of unity, that the bishops of the same province, should by mutual consent, govern their churches under the inspection of one of themselves, whom they invested with a power of presiding in provincial synods, consecrating the bishops of the province, and with several other privileges, determined and limited by ecclesiastical canons. This moderator or president of the bishops of a province, was styled archbishop, or metropolitan, a title still retained by modern episcopal churches.

It further appears, that the office of metropolitan was generally conferred on that bishop, who presided over the church, established in the metropolis; and it is generally allowed, that the bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, as presiding in the three most considerable cities, were distinguished by peculiar rights and benefits. In this human order of affairs, (not from any divine institution. or authority of St. Peter descending to his successors,) Rome had the precedence of Carthage, because as the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451 states, it was the royal city, and the fathers justly gave it privileges.

the consent of all, that so there may be unity. Now what place could be more opportune, to mention the popes jurisdiction over the whole church, than this? But does not the canonist exclude it, by assigning the supreme disposal of all things, to the arbitration of the bishops of each province, and placing the maintenance of unity in that course? If it be objected, that this is a negative argument, I answer, how can I better shew a thing not to be, than by proving it to have no footing, where it is suposed to stand? How can I more clearly argue a matter of right to want evidence, than by declaring it not to be extant, in the laws enacting such right, not taught by the masters who profess to instruct in such matters, not testified in records concerning the exercise of it.

In the beginning of the third century, lived Turtullian, who, in his Apology, p. 39. thus describes the unity of the church, in his time:"We are one body by agreement in religion, by unity of discipline, and the same covenant of hope." And in his Prescriptions, p. 19. he says, that it consisted in adhering to that doctrine which was preach