force of this canon, by alleging that by a married Presbyter yɛyaμŋêùç, is meant not one who has a wife, but one who has ever had one. But, 1st, the violence done to the Greek by this has been clearly exposed by the learned Beveridge (Pand. ii. 184,), who cites St. Paul's advice "now to the married I command, let not the wife depart from her husband," &c., in which it is clear that the apostle is speaking of those then in a state of marriage, not who had been: the Greek here is the same as that in the canon yɛyaμŋkóol. 2ndly. It is to be observed, that the Eustathians, against whom the Council of Gangra was assembled, objected not to a Presbyter who had had a wife, but to one continuing to have one, to whom he had been married when a layman, as is plain from the passage of Socrates's History, Пpeoẞuréρov yvvaika ἔχοντος, ἣν νόμῳ λαικὸς ὢν ἠγάγετο, τὴν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν ὡς μῦσος ἐκκλίνειν ἐκέλευε, (ii. c. 43.) "He commanded them to avoid, as wickedness, the blessing and communion of a Presbyter retaining the wife whom he had lawfully married while a layman." It is clear, therefore, and beyond dispute, that this canon sanctions clergymen retaining their wives, and anathematizes those who gainsay it. It is clear that all who in the Church of Rome assent to the seventh canon of the second Lateran Council, are anathematized by this canon, which has been confirmed by the authority of a general council, which is acknowledged as such by the whole Catholic Church. In allowing clergymen to retain their wives, this canon did no more than had been done in the very earliest ages of the Church; for, we find in the Ante-Nicene Code, of which mention has been already made, the following (6th) canon,-" Let not a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, put away his wife, under pretence of religion; if he do, let him be suspended from communion, and deposed if he persist:" and the conduct of the first Nicene Council upon this point we have already seen.

Antioch.

Canon 12, PAGE 38.

This canon is chiefly of value, because, when compared with the doubtful canons of Sardica, it proves that those canons, if

genuine, conferred no more power upon the Bishop of Rome than seems here to be admitted to be in the emperor, namely, that of directing a cause to be reheard by a larger council. This power which is here implied, is expressly asserted in the African Code, canon 104, which is the 19th of the Synod of Mileni, in Numidia, A.D. 416, and is as follows: "If any one shall ask of the emperor to have his cause heard by the public judges, he shall be deprived of his honour (bishopric); but if he ask of the emperor for the judgment of bishops, this shall be no hindrance to him." (Labbé and Cossart, ii. 1542.) But, note, that by the 15th canon of Antioch, no appeal at all can be had if the provincial bishops are unanimous.

Canon 22, PAGE 39.

This is one of the numerous canons to be found in the ancient Codes, by which the ministrations of the foreign bishops, in communion with Rome, in the English dioceses, are proved to be schismatical and invalid.

Laodicea.

Canon 35, PAge 40.

This plain testimony of the Fathers of the Primitive Church against the invocation and worshipping of angels, which is denounced as idolatry, is not to be set aside by all the ingenuity of the Roman writers. (See their attempts, Labbé and Cossart. i. 1526.) The subtle distinctions of Latria, Dulia, and the rest, had not entered the imagination of Theodoret when he cited this canon as condemning the worshipping of angels, σύνοδος ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι. (Comm. Coloss. ii. 18.): nor iñto that of Origen, who expressly says, that men ought not to worship or adore the angels, for that all prayer and supplication, and intercession and thanksgiving, should be made to God alone (Contra Celsum v. § 4.), and that right reason forbids the invocation of them (ibid. ibid. § 5.).

Canon 49, PAGE 40.

I would simply ask whether, if the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the Mass had now obtained, any impartial person can suppose that the sacrifice of the holy eucharist, would have been spoken of as it is here.

Canon 60, PAGE 41.

As the Churches of Rome and England are agreed as to the books of the New Testament, there is no need to add the list furnished by this, which is the same as that acknowledged by both churches, except that, like most other lists of this date, it omits Revelations. The words "and Baruch, Lamentations and Epistles," are printed in the text in Italics, because it is doubtful whether they ought to be retained. The copy of the canons used by Aristenus has them not (see Beveridge's Pandect, i. 481.); nor that used by Isidore Mercator (see Labbé and Cossart, i. 1521). It is to be observed, that many copies of these canons omit this list altogether. As that of Dionysius Exiguus (Labbé and Cossart, i. 1515.); of John of Antioch (Bibl. Jur. Can. Paris, 1661. ii. 600); and the Epitome of Symeon (ibid. 731.). It is only of weight to show that, in the opinion of the council (if it be admitted to be genuine), or, at any rate, in that of the interpolator, none of the books which the Romans have added to the Jewish canon of the Old Testament were admitted to be canonical; with the slight exception (if it be admitted to be an exception) of the Book of Baruch.

CHALCEDON resumed.

Canon 9, PAGE 42.

This is a very remarkable canon, its genuineness is admitted by all; it was passed in the presence and with the approbation of the Roman legates; nor did the Bishop of Rome offer any objection to it, when it was reported to him. As by Exarch of a

Province is to be understood the Metropolitan, so by Exarch of the Diocese, by which term the ancients designated a patriarchate, is to be understood the Patriarch, and so (as Beveridge points out) Justinian understood the regulation which he re-ordained (Novel. 123. c. 22.), directing that the most blessed Patriarch should judge the cause brought by a Bishop or clergyman against a Metropolitan: so Alexius Aristenus interprets it; and the ancient Latin version in Justel's edition, and that of Dionysius Exiguus, appear to have understood it in the same way: primam sedem, et primatem dioceseos being the terms in which they express it. Balsamon and Zonaras in like manner understood it of the chief ecclesiastical officer in each patriarchate. That by the throne of the Imperial Constantinople" is to be understood the Patriarch of that See, is admitted by all. And the undeniable meaning of the canon is, that from the decision of a Metropolitan and his synod, an appeal lay to the Patriarch of the Patriarchate in which the province was situated, or, if the parties preferred it, directly to the See of Constantinople; which is thus (apparently) by the authority of a general council, vested with greater pre-eminence than any other bishopric has ever received from the same source. Rome had claimed, as we have before seen, the same pre-eminence on the strength of the pretended canon of Sardica, but the claim was indignantly rejected by the African bishops, who denied the existence of any such regulation. The Roman writers make desperate plunges to get out of this difficulty (See Labbé and Cossart, iv. 996.): asserting that by Exarch of the Diocese, must be understood the Prince of Christendom, i. e., as they say the Bishop of Rome: a monstrous, absurd, and groundless interpretation, destitute of all countenance whatever. But even were it so, it is certain he is placed by this canon, but on a par with the Patriarch of Constantinople; it being for the choice of the appealing party to take the appeal either to Rome or Constantinople. I must honestly confess that I suspect that the canon does not mean what it appears to mean on the face of it: knowing the arrogant pretensions

of Rome, even at that time, it seems to me unreasonable to suppose that the canon could have passed without the angry remonstrance of the Roman legates, and the still more strenuous opposition of the Bishop of Rome afterwards. I would therefore hazard the conjecture that it had a local and not a general meaning; having reference to the Patriarchates of Heraclea, Cæsarea and Ephesus, which were merged in that of Constantinople, though the chief officers in them still retained a precedency of rank; and that it had no reference to the Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, or any other districts but those above-named. Even admitting this, the total silence as to any appeal to Rome, is conclusive evidence of the usurping character of the Bishop of Rome's claim to any authority in the East. I have ventured to differ with Johnson (Vade Mecum), in the translation of the last words of the canon, ¿π’ avrý dikaĻéo0w: which he renders, "let it be tried by him." He has countenance for his, from the decree of Justinian above-cited; but no where else. The version of Gentianus Hervetus, used by Routh in his "Opuscula," gives it apud ipsum; which, I suppose, is before and not by him. Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore Mercator, and the very ancient version in Justel, render it there: “apud ipsam," Dion. Exiguus; "ibi," Isidore Merca.; "ibi." Prisca. Canon. Edit. It would, I conceive, have been perfectly new and unheard of in the Christian Church; that a single bishop, of any See in the world, should overrule the decision of a provincial synod. The only tribunal capable of doing this, which the Church had hitherto recognized, was "a greater synod of bishops” (Antioch, Conc. 12.), the same as “the greater synod of the bishops of the diocese" (patriarchate), (Constantinople. Conc. 6.) and the claim which, on the strength of the pretended Sardican canons, the Bishop of Rome had put forth, was not that he should decide a cause, but merely order it to be reheard (Sardic. Can. 6.) by other bishops: the same power, which, as we have seen, the African Councils allowed to rest with the emperor; and which the Church of England concedes to the king: and is, after