There is no reason to suppose that all Patrick’s ecclesiastical foundations took the shape of monastic societies. Many of the churches which he founded were served, doubtless, by only one or two clerics, and furnished with only enough land to support them. But the monastic foundations were a leading feature of the organisation. They were to be centres for propagating Christianity and schools for educating the clergy. But they also served the religious needs of the immediate district. A staff of clergy was attached, and the abbot was frequently also a bishop. It is not difficult to conjecture the reason and purpose of this remarkable union of the monastic institution with general church organisation. It was probably due to the circumstance that there were no cities in Ireland; centres had to be created for ecclesiastical purposes, and it was almost a matter of course that these ecclesiastical towns should be constructed on the monastic principle. If towns had existed, they would have been the ecclesiastical centres, the seats of the bishops; the bishops would not have been abbots or attached to monasteries. The fact that the word _civitas_, “city,” was used to designate these double-sided communities illustrates the motive of this singular organisation. [Sidenote: DIOCESAN SYSTEM] But the peculiarity must not mislead us into the error of supposing that there was no diocesan organisation, or that the bishops whom Patrick ordained had not definite and distinct sees.[194] It is inconceivable that in instituting bishops he should not have been guided by geographical considerations, or that in organising a clerical body he should not have submitted them to the jurisdiction of the bishops whom he ordained. The limits of the bishoprics would naturally have corresponded to the limits of tribal territories; this was not only the simplest scheme, but was also dictated by obvious political expedience. The anomalous state of things which presently arose, the multiplication of bishops without sees, was assuredly never anticipated by Patrick. It was due to the extravagant growth of monasticism. When new monasteries were founded, they determined to have bishops of their own, and to be quite independent of the bishops of the dioceses in which they were situated. This practice was not indeed confined to Ireland. There are several notable instances in Gaul.[195] But whereas elsewhere it was the exception, in Ireland it seems to have become the rule. The desire of new foundations to be self-sufficient and completely independent of the diocesan bishop would not perhaps have been so strong if the diocesan bishop had not usually been associated with one of the older monasteries. But once the practice of bishops without sees was introduced, bishops multiplied like flies. A new and narrow conception of the episcopal office prevailed, and when it was recognised that bishops need not have sees, there was no reason to set a limit to their number. The order of