made on the part of the representative of the Bishop of Rome to substitute a spurious edition of this canon, beginning thus,"The Church of Rome always had the primacy," &c. But the attempt was defeated at the time by a copy of the canon belonging to the Archdeacon of Constantinople; and none of the Greek codes countenanced it; so that it has been universally rejected. Even if the reading had been genuine, it would have implied no more than a primacy of rank, which was never denied to the See of the chief city of the Roman Empire. In the very ancient manuscript collection of the canons belonging to Justel, this disputed canon stands thus, and plainly points out the extent of the Roman jurisdiction, and the equality of authority which all other Metropolitans at that time enjoyed with him. De primatu Ecclesiæ Romanæ, vel aliarum civitatum Episcopis. Antiqui moris est ut urbis Romæ Episcopus habeat principatum, ut suburbicaria loca et omnem provinciam sua sollicitudine gubernet; quæ verò apud Ægyptum sunt, Alexandriæ Episcopus omnium habeat sollicitudinem: similiter autem et circa Antiochum et in cæteris provinciis privilegia propria serventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis," &c.-Bibl. Jur. Can. vet., Paris, 1661, vol. i. p. 284. History, PAGE 29. Compare the wise resolution of the Nicene bishops, with the 3rd and 21st canons of the first Lateran; and the 6th and 7th of the 2nd Lateran. CONSTANTINOPLE. Canon 2, PAGE 30. It is difficult to conceive how any laws or canons could more precisely and peremptorily have provided beforehand against the usurpations which afterwards were practised by the Bishop of Rome. Let any one, after reading these decisions of the Catholic Church, turn to the Roman Council of Lateran, or to the Oath of E Obedience to Rome, required to be taken by all bishops and metropolitans, as given above; and then judge how openly and manifestly the Roman Church has departed from the Catholic rules. Canon 3, PAGE 31. Here we may see how little ground in antiquity and authority the Bishop of Rome can find for his claim to universal supremacy by Divine appointment, as the successor of Peter. It was to him, as Bishop of the seat of government, that the Fathers of the Catholic Church allowed, not authority, but rank. When Rome ceased to be the seat of the government of the world, even the honour allowed by the early church fell, as of right, to the ground. Still, if the Bishop of that See will content himself with asking, out of respect to antiquity, that the same precedence should be allowed to him, as was of old, there can be little doubt, that that request would be readily granted by the Bishops of the rest of Christendom. Canon 6, PAGE 31. By this canon the adherents to the Bishop of Rome in the British dioceses, "who have separated themselves" from the British churches "and made congregation contrary to our canonical bishops," would stand condemned, not of schism only but of heresy, even if they had kept the Catholic faith pure and inviolate. How much more then when they have corrupted that faith with their new and unauthorized additions! Synodical Epistle, page 32. As Theodoret (Hist. v. c. 9), and Labbé and Cossart (ii. 960), insert this letter among the acts of the second General Council, and modern writers (Bishop Taylor and others) refer to it as such, I have thought it right to give it a place here. But in point of fact it is not, strictly speaking, the act of the same council: but of most of them, (oi nλełotoɩ toútwv, Theodoret. v. c. 8.) who re assembled at Constantinople the year following that in which the General Council was held. But, be this as it may, it is a testimony of an important assembly of Christian bishops to the falsehood of an assertion, an assent to which is deemed necessary to salvation, and made a term of communion by the Church of Rome. EPHESUS. Action 6, PAGE 33. It is clear from this, that in requiring assent to the Creed of Pope Pius (see Form for receiving a convert, above), as a term of communion, the Church of Rome is schismatically opposing itself to a decree of the Catholic Church. Action 7, PAGE 35. This is conclusive evidence against the Roman usurpations in Britain; seeing that, at the time this council was held, the churches here were, as they had ever been, wholly independent of the Roman jurisdiction; owning no superior under God but their own Metropolitan. All the power that the Bishop of Rome afterwards, by slow degrees, acquired here, was in direct violation of this decree of the Catholic Church. It is in continued schismatical violation of the Catholic rules that he continues to send Bishops into the British isles. CHALCEDON. Canon 1, PAGE 37. By this canon the sanction and authority of a General Council is given to the twenty-five canons of Ancyra, A.D. 315; the fourteen canons of Neocæsarea, held about the same time; the twenty canons of Gangra, A.D. 340; the twenty-five canons of Antioch, A.D. 341; and the fifty-nine canons of Laodicæa, A.D. 367 which, being added to the twenty canons of the Great Nicene Council, formed the beginning of that code, called by Justellus the Code of the Universal Church, to which the decrees of the General Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, were afterwards added. This body of canon-law was confirmed by the civil authority of the Roman empire under the Emperor Justinian, who ordered that "the canons edited or confirmed by the four general councils, should have the force of law." This code is referred to by the Fathers in their councils, as appears in the 4th Action, where the 5th of Antioch is cited verbatim (Labbé and Cossart, iv. 527); and in the 11th Action, where the 16th and 17th canons of Antioch are cited at length (ibid. ibid. 691), as the 95th and 96th, which, if the number of canons of the councils above-named, be added together, they will be found to be. Neocæsarea. Canon 1, PAGE 37. There is no doubt that the rule (article 32), and custom of the Church of England, which permits, not only Presbyters but Bishops also, to marry after they are ordained or consecrated, is a relaxation and departure from the general custom of the Primitive Church, and contrary to this canon. But as the Church of England has never made an assent to the sacred canons a term of communion, this argues no inconsistency in her, and as she is content to assert her own liberty, without censuring or excommunicating those churches which are content to waive it in this point, she is guilty of no schism, nor breach of charity. The simple question is, whether the power, for edification and not for destruction, which the Lord has given (2 Cor. x. 8.) to the apostles of the Church, to set in order the things that are wanting (Tit. i. 5.), does not warrant the spiritual rulers of any integral portion of the Church of Christ, provincial or national, in dispensing with a rule of discipline, which, though ancient and general; 1. Was not universally and from the beginning; for, in the collection of canons made at different timesand places prior to the conversion of Constantine, and known by the name apostolical, we have one to this effect," If any bishop, priest, or deacon, or any of the sacerdotal list, abstain from marriage and flesh, and wine, not for mortification but out of abhorrence, as having forgotten that all things are very good, and that God made man male and female; blasphemously reproaching God's workmanship, let him amend, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church; and so also a layman." (Ante-Nicene Code, 51.) 2, Which has no sanction from the Scriptures of the New Testament, where marriage is said to be honourable in all (Heb. xiii. 4.); but rather savours of heresies therein condemned (1 Tim. iv. 3.); 3, which is an abridgment of Christian liberty; 4, which is contrary to the former dispensation ; 5, and which in practice has been found inexpedient, and injurious to the morals both of clergy and people. The Church of Rome, of all others, can least find fault with the exercise of liberty on this point; for she has expressly asserted the authority of the Church to dispense with the restrictions in marriage, which have been appointed even by God Himself, (Council of Trent, session 24, of Matrimony. Canon 3.) and has pronounced anathema upon all who shall gainsay that authority. Much more then, in all reason, may the Church of England, without blame, assert her authority to dispense with a human regulation, which is rather against than according to, the Word of God; and the hardship and inconvenience of enforcing which are undeniably very great. Observe, there is nothing in this canon tending to separate Presbyters or others from the wives which they had previously to being ordained. But of that more hereafter. Gangra. This canon is diametrically opposed to the 7th of the second Lateran, where it is decreed, "We command that no one hear the masses of those whom he may know to be married." The Roman writers (Labbé and Cossart, ii. 430,) endeavour to evade the |