tion of the Creed by Theodotus of Ancyra. 11. In the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, in which it occurs twice. These copies have been collated by Walchius, and the various readings enumerated; but with the exception of those which occur in the second form, in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, in which several of the additions of the Constantinopolitan Creed are introduced, there is not one of any consequence, or which in the least affects the sense.

Walchius also gives copies of the principal early Latin versions, which only vary in some of the Latin synonyms, by which they render some of the words of the Greek original. In most of them the Greek word Homoousion is retained with a translation of it added, of which there occur four forms in the different versions. Unius substantiæ cum Patre, ejusdem cum Patre substantiæ, ejusdem cum Patris substantiâ, and, consubstantialem Patri. Walchius, Biblioth. Symbol. vetus, p. 75.

2. Substance or essence.] iпóσractws ǹ ovcías. The word iñóOraσis is here used as synonymous with ovcía, essence, or, as it is commonly translated, substance; in other places it is used as synonymous with прóгшлоν, person; and much confusion and many disputes have at times been occasioned by this indiscriminate use of the word. It may, therefore, be as well to give some account of the three words here, as it will prevent the necessity of frequent repetitions in the notes upon the other documents.

1. There is no difficulty about the word ovcía, which, when applied to the Deity, always signifies the one divine essence or substance which is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and which is also expressed by the synonymous word puois, nature. Thus Leontius, quoted by Suicer, “It should be known, that essence and nature, ovoía kai púois, are the same thing with the Fathers. The Arians, therefore, objected equally to both terms; as, in the account of the Arian Synod of Sirmium, A. D, 351, it is said, that it put forth an impious definition of faith, forbidding to speak of nature or substance in God. In like manner both ovcía and púois are used in the plural with respect to Christ, to express the divine and human substances or natures which are in him united in one person. Thus Athanasius, as

quoted by Suicer, "Christ had the two substances and natures,

ovoías kai púocis, without change or mixture, the Godhead and the Manhood; to be acknowledged in one person, úroσráoε, perfect God and perfect man."

2. There is not much more difficulty respecting the word яρоσшяоν, person, which when applied to the Godhead, expresses the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by which the one is not either of the others. There were therefore held to be three Persons in the Godhead, so that the Godhead might be properly called tri-personal, rρinρóσwños. The Sabellians, however, though in the catholic sense of the word they acknowledged only one Person in the Godhead, still, for the purpose of deception, would also use the word Tρiπρóσwπоs, and profess to acknowledge that God was one tripersonal substance, μία ὑπόστασις τριπρόσωπος, but then the sense which they attached to the word person was that of appearance or manifestation, so that by the expression pía vпóσracis TρITρÓσwоs, they in reality meant only one personal substance under three manifestations. The Sabellian use of the word, however, is not common enough to cause any confusion.

3. We come now to the word inboтaois, hypostasis, respecting the meaning and use of which there have been various differences and disputes. In the Nicene Creed, as we have seen, it is used as synonymous with ovcía, and other instances of this meaning are quoted by Suicer. In this sense of course there is only one hypostasis in the Godhead. But the word is more commonly used as synonymous with πρόσωπον. Thus Theodoret as quoted by Suicer, "As the name man is the common name of that nature, so we have taken the words divine substance, Oɛíav ovcíav, to signify the Holy Trinity: but the word hypostasis is indicative of some person, πрoσínov Tivòs ♪ŋλwrikǹv, as either of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. For we following the definitions of the Fathers say, that the words ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, and ιδιότης (that is, property or propriety), signify the same thing." Many others of the Greek Fathers used the word in the same sense, and objected to the expression one hypostasis, which they thought savored of Sabellianism. The Latins however translated the word inórraois, substantia, which was the same word by which they rendered

ovoía, and therefore as they abhorred the expression, tres substantiæ, they objected also to that of rρeîs iñoσráσɛis, which they thought savored of Arianism, and were for keeping entirely to that of rρía ρówna, tres personæ, three persons. The disputes occasioned by this double sense of the word ran so high, and caused so much confusion in the Church, that the question was solemnly submitted to the decision of a Council, held at Alexandria, A. D. 362, at which Athanasius was present, and which was attended by many Bishops from Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya. The decision of the Synod was, that the whole contention was a mere logomachy, and that the two parties should recognize each other as orthodox. According to this decision, both the expressions, of one hypostasis, and three hypostases, are equally correct, the word being understood in the former case as synonymous with substance, and in the latter with person. The Latins afterwards invented the words subsistentia, and suppositum, as renderings of inóoracis. As the word occurs frequently in some of the other documents contained in this work, though always in the sense of person, it may be as well to mention here, that whenever it does occur it is translated subsistence, and the word person confined to ρóошяоV. The matter of this note is taken from Suicer's Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, upon the words οὐσία, πρόσωπον, and ὑπόστασις, and from Waterland's second Defence, vol. iii. of Bp. Van Mildert's edition, p. 200 and 414.

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF NICE.

I. If any one has been obliged to undergo a surgical operation from disease, or has been castrated by barbarians, let him continue in the Clergy. But if any one in good health has so mutilated himself, it is right that if he be enrolled amongst the Clergy he should cease from his ministrations; and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. As however it is plain that this is said with reference to those who dare to mutilate them

selves, therefore if any persons have been so mutilated by barbarians, or by their own masters, and in other respects are found worthy, the Canon allows them to be admitted to the Clerical office. See Apost. Can. 21, 22, 23.

II. Since many things have been done by men either from necessity, or some other pressing cause, contrary to the Canons of the Church, as that persons who have lately come over to the faith from a heathen life, and have been taught for a short time, have been presently brought to the spiritual laver, and at the same time that they have been baptized, have been promoted to the Episcopate, or Presbytery; it appears right to determine, that nothing of the sort shall be done for the future; for some time is necessary for the state of a Catechumen (1), and a fuller probation after Baptism; for the Apostolic decree is clear, which says, "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into a snare, and the condemnation of the devil." But if in process of time any natural fault should be discovered about the person, let him be deposed from the Clergy. Whosoever shall act contrary to these rules will endanger his own orders, as boldly opposing the great Synod. Apost. Can. 80.

III. The great Synod altogether forbids any Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, or any one of the Clergy, to have a woman dwelling with him (1) excepting a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are above all suspicion.

IV. It is most proper that a Bishop should be constituted by all the Bishops of the Province (1); but if this be difficult on account of some urgent necessity, or the length of the way, that at all events three (2) should meet together at the same place, those who are absent also giving their suffrages, and their consent in writing, and

then the ordination be performed. The confirming how→ ever of what is done in each Province, belongs to the Metropolitan of it. Apost. Can. 1. 35.

V. Concerning those, whether of the Clergy or Laity, who have been excommunicated by the Bishops in the different Provinces, let the sentence of the Canon prevail, which pronounces, that those persons who have been cast out by one Bishop are not to be received again into communion by any others. Inquiry should however be made whether they have been excommunicated through the peevishness or contentiousness, or other such like bitterness, of the Bishop. And in order that this inquiry may be conveniently made, it is decreed to be proper, that Synods should be assembled twice every year in every Province, that all the Bishops of the Province being assembled together, such questions may be examined into, that so those who have confessedly offended against the Bishop may appear to be with reason excommunicated by all the Bishops, until it shall seem fit to their general assembly to pronounce a more lenient sentence upon them. And of these Synods (1), one is to be held before Lent (2), that all bitterness being removed, a pure gift may be offered to God. The other in the season of Autumn. Apost. Can. 12, 13. 38.

VI. Let the ancient customs be maintained (1), which are in Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis, according to which the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all those places. For this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome (2). In like manner in Antioch, and in the other Provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to the Churches. But this is clearly to be understood, that if any one be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod declares that he shall not be a Bishop. If however two or three Bishops shall