only; and therefore its Canons were never received into the code of the universal Church." Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. ii. p. 157.

Amongst other things enacted by these Canons, it was provided, that in the event of any Bishop considering himself aggrieved by the sentence of the Bishops of his province, he might apply to the Bishop of Rome, who would write to the Bishops in the neighborhood of the province of the aggrieved Bishop, to rehear the cause; and should also, if it seemed desirable to do so, send some Presbyters of his own Church, to assist at the rehearing. These privileges indeed were not allowed to the Bishop of Rome by the Sardican Fathers as a matter of right, but of favor; as appears from the words of Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, in proposing the Canon to the Synod. "Hosius, Bishop, said; If any Bishop thinks that his cause has been misjudged, in order that it may be judged again, if it seems right to your love, let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter, and let those who have judged the cause write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, in order that a new trial may, if proper, be had." And at the end of the Canons relating to the subject it is added, "The Bishops answered, We approve of what has been said." It is probable, indeed, as Richerius in his History of Councils observes, that these Canons were only provisional, and intended for the security of the Eastern orthodox Bishops against the Arians, and that the privilege conferred upon the Bishop of Rome in them, was not meant to be given to the see of Rome, but only to the then Bishop Julius, who is expressly mentioned in them; and consequently that they were only designed for the case then before the Council,

An attempt, however, was made at the beginning of the fifth century, by Zosimus, Bishop of Rome, to establish his authority in the African Churches, by means of these Canons, on the following occasion. Apiarius, a Presbyter of the Church of Sicca in Africa, having been deposed by his Bishop for gross immoralities, fled to Rome, A. D. 415, and was received to communion by Zosimus. Zosimus further sent legates into Africa, to the Bishops there, desiring that Apiarius's cause should be heard over again; asserting that the Bishops of Rome had the privilege of

requiring such rehearings conferred upon them by the Canons of Nice. The African Bishops, to the number of two hundred and seventeen, being assembled in Synod at Carthage, received these legates, who declared the cause of their coming, and, in proof of the authority claimed by the Pope, quoted the Sardican Canons, which they alleged as genuine Canons of the Council of Nice. The African Bishops said in their answers, that they acknowledged the authority of the Nicene Canons, and were ready to abide implicitly by them; but that as regarded those which the legates alleged, they were not to be found in the copies of the Nicene Canons, which were brought to Africa by Cæcilian, Bishop of Carthage, who was present at the Council of Nice, nor in any other copies that they had ever seen. That, however, they would send to the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, who must have the genuine Canons, and, if it should appear that the alleged Canons were genuine, they would submit to them. They sent accordingly, and received answers from Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and Cyril of Alexandria, with copies of the genuine Canons. By these answers it was indisputably proved, that the twenty Canons alone were genuine, and that no others had ever been known or heard of. The matter, however, was not finally settled for several years, in the course of which Zosimus and his successor Boniface died; and it was closed by a letter from the African Bishops to Celestine, then Bishop of Rome, in which they assert the independence of their own, and all other Churches, and deny the pretended right of hearing appeals claimed by the Bishop of Rome; and further exhort him not to do or attempt anything contrary to the Canons of the Church, either by receiving into communion persons who had been excommunicated by their own Bishops, or by interfering in any way with the privileges of other Churches. For a full account of the particulars contained in this note, see the account of the Synod of Sardica, and of those of Carthage, in the collections of Councils. The Canons of Sardica are translated by Johnson, and inserted in the Clergyman's Vade Mecum.

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

THE Second Ecumenical Council was assembled at Constantinople, A. D. 381, by the Emperor Theodosius the Elder, to appease the troubles of the East, occasioned by the various heresies of the Arians, and those of the Macedonians, and others. It was attended by 150 oriental Bishops, and Timothy of Alexandria and other persons successively presided in it.

The Council solemnly confirmed the Nicene Creed, but made some additions to the statements respecting the Incarnation of our Lord, and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. It omitted the anathema at the end of the Creed, but added the Articles respecting the Church, &c. Further, it anathematized various heresies, and made some rules of discipline. The Synod addressed a letter to the Emperor Theodosius, informing him of their decrees, and requesting him to authorize the publication of them, which he did, by an edict commanding all Churches to be delivered to Bishops who held the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity. The Creed as enlarged by this Council has now universally superseded the original form of the Nicene Creed, but inasmuch as it professed to be and is substantially the same, not introducing any new doctrine, but only defining more clearly some articles of doctrine against new heresies, and adding those articles respecting the Church, which were probably omitted in the Nicene Creed only because

the particular object of that Creed was to counteract the Arian heresies respecting the Divinity of our Lord, the enlarged form still commonly retains the name of the Nicene Creed.

The authentic records of this Council are, the Synodal Epistle to the Emperor, the Creed, and the Seven Canons. Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 197.

THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and made man, and crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated on the right hand of the Father; and will come again with glory to judge the living and dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who spake by the Prophets. In one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Walchius notices only three ancient Greek copies of

this Creed. The first in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, and the other two in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. He gives several old Latin versions of it; 1. From monuments of the old Roman Church, viz. the Code of the Canons of the Roman Church, the Sacramentary of Gelasius, the version of Dionysius Exiguus, and the interpretation of Isidore Mercator. There are various readings of no material consequence in these different renderings, but in none of them, nor in any of the Greek copies, do the words expressing the procession of the Spirit from the Son as well as the Father occur. 2. A Latin version from the Acts of the third Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, in which the words "Filioque" do occur, and 3. and 4. the Latin versions in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, in which they do not.

The question respecting the insertion of the words. "and from the Son" into the Creed is involved in much obscurity indeed there is no satisfactory evidence as to when, or by whom, the addition was first made. As regards the doctrine itself, it is to be observed, that many of the Latin Fathers, as early as the beginning of the fifth century, assert in express terms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father (see quotations to this effect from Hilary, Ambrose, Paulinus, Augustin, Fulgentius, Prudentius, Leo, and Vigilius, in Pearson on the eighth Article of the Creed, and others from Augustin particularly, in Forbes' Instruct. Theolog. 1. i. c. 6.) None of the Greek Fathers, however, allowed in express terms that the Spirit proceeded (èxлоɛúεσ0αι) from the Son, though, as Pearson and others show, the expressions which they did use, of the Spirit's receiving of the Son, and being sent by the Son, were tantamount to what the Latins meant by proceeding from Him. The