(London, 1848), in an English translation by Williams (Oxford, 1854), and in German by Larsow (Leipzig, 1852). Mansi puts the council in the year 344, but most writers, including Giescler, Nean- der, Milman, and Greenwood, following the erroneous statement of Socrates (ii. 20) J J and Sozomen (iiij^l2), place it in the year 347. Comp. on the subject Larsow, ^ Die Festbriefe des Athanasius, p. 31 ; and Hefele, Conciliengesch. i. p. 513 sqq. - § 62. DECREES OF COUNCILS OX PAPAL AUTUOKITY. 311 Rornaii claims. In the interest of the deposed Athanasius and ot'the Xicene orthodoxy it decreed : (1) That a deposed bishop, who feels he has a good cause, may apply, out of reverence to the memory of the apostle Peter, to the Roman bishop Julius, and shall leave it with hiiti either to ratify the deposition or to summon a new council. (2) That the vacant bishopric shall not be tilled till the decision of Rome be received. (3) That the Roman bishop, in such a case of appeal, may. according to his best judgment, either institute a new trial by the bishops of a neighboring province, or send delegates to the spot with full power to decide the matter with the bishops.' Thus was plainly committed to the Roman bishops an appellate and revisory jurisdiction in the case of a condemned or deposed bishop even of the East, But in the first place this authority is not here acknowledged as a right already existing in practice. It is conferred as a new power, and that merely as an honorary right, and as pertaining only to the bishop Julius in person.'' Otherwise, either this bishop would not be ex- pressly named, or his successors would be named with him. Furthermore, the canons limit the appeal to the case of a bishop deposed by his comprovincials, and* say nothing of other cases. Finally, the council of Sardica was not a general council, but only a local synod of the West, and could there- fore establish no law for the whole church. For the Eastern bishops withdrew at the very beginning, and held an opposi- ' Can. 3, 4, and 5 (in the Latin translation, can. 3, 4, and 7 ), in Mansi, iii. 23 sq., and in Hefele, i. 539 sqq., where the Greek and the Latin Dionysian text ia giveti with learned explanations. The Greeli and Latin texts differ in some points. - So the much discussed canones are explained not only by Protestant historians, but also by Catholic of the Galilean school, like Peter de Marca, Quesnel, Du-Piu, Richer, Febronius. This interpretation agrees best with the whole connection ; with the express mention of Julius (which is lacking, indeed, in the Latin translation of Prisca and in Isidore, but stands distinctly in the Greek and Dionysian texts : 'lovKiu ra iiricTKOTro! 'Pcinris, Julio Romano episcopo); with the words, "Si vobis placet'' (can. 3), whereby the appeal in question is made dependent first on the decree