and approved Fathers, and defining agreeably thereto; confesses our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, one of the holy consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Godhead, and also perfect in Manhood, the same truly God, and truly man of a reasonable soul and flesh; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us without sin; who was begotten of the Father before the worlds according to the Godhead, but in these last days for us and for our salvation [born] according to the Manhood of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, properly and truly the bringer-forth of God; to be acknowledged one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, in two natures, without confusion, change, separation, or division, the distinction of the natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the propriety of each nature being preserved and concurring in one Person, and one Subsistence, not being parted or divided into two Persons, but one and the same, the only-begotten Son of God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old, and Jesus Christ himself, has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has delivered to us. And in like manner we declare that there are in Him two natural wills and two natural operations, without separation, change, division, or confusion, according to the doctrine of the holy fathers; and that the two natural wills are not opposed to each other (God forbid), as the impious heretics have asserted, but his human will follows and does not oppose, or contend against, but rather is in subjection to his Divine and Almighty will. For it was necessary that the will of the flesh should be moved, but that it should be subjected to the Divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius; for as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the

Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is belonging to God, as he himself says, "I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will, but the will of the Father who sent me," calling the will of his flesh his own will, inasmuch as his flesh was his own. For in the same manner as his most holy and spotless flesh with a rational soul was not destroyed by being deified, but continued in the same state and sense, so also his human will being deified was not destroyed, but is the rather preserved, as Gregory the divine says, for his will considered as in the Saviour is not contrary to God, being wholly deified. We also confess two natural operations without separation, change, division, or confusion, in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is, the divine operation and the human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who says most plainly, for each form by its communion with the other works that which it had of its own, the Word working that which belongs to the Word, and the body performing those things which belong to the body: for we must not allow one natural operation of God and a creature, that we may not exalt that which is created into the Divine Substance, nor lower the excellence of the Divine nature into a rank suited to creatures. For we acknowledge the miracles and sufferings of one and the same Person according to the difference of the natures from which they proceed, and in which they have their existence, as the admirable Cyril says. Preserving then always the inconfusedness and inseparability, we declare the whole matter in a few words. We believe that one of the Holy Trinity, and after his incarnation our Lord Jesus Christ, is our true God; and we say that his two natures shone forth in his one Subsistence, in which throughout the whole of his incarnate conversation, he showed forth, not phantasti

cally but truly, both the miracles and the sufferings, the distinction of natures being recognized in one and the same Subsistence, in that each nature with the communion of the other willed and wrought that which was proper to itself, on which account we confess two natural wills and operations mutually concurring to the salvation of the human race.

These things then being defined by us with the utmost accuracy and care, we decree that it shall not be lawful for any one to bring forward or write or compose any belief, or to understand or teach otherwise. And they who shall dare to compose any other belief, or to bring forward or teach or deliver another Creed to those who wish to turn to the acknowledging of the truth from Heathenism or Judaism, or any heresy, or to introduce any novelty of expression, or newly-invented phrases, to the subversion of those things which we have now defined, if they are Bishops or of the Clergy, they shall be deposed from their order; if Monks or Laymen, anathematized.

THE CANONS

OF THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS

RECEIVED INTO

THE CODE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

THE Canons of the five Provincial Synods which follow (as is stated in the note on the first Canon of the Council of Chalcedon), had been collected into one Code previously to the holding of that Council by which they were received and confirmed, and so stamped with the authority of the Universal Church. According to Justellus who published the Code of the Universal Church in 1610, this collection was first made in the reign of Theodosius the Great, soon after the first Council of Constantinople, by one Stephen Bishop of Ephesus, whose name Justellus had seen prefixed to this Code in the Palatine Library, and contained at first only the Nicene, Ancyran, Neocæsarean, Gangren, Antiochian, Laodicean, and Constantinopolitan Canons; those of Ephesus and Chalcedon were afterwards added. See Justell. pref. to Can. of Nice.

That this collection was made and received by the Church previous to the Council of Chalcedon is evident from the manner in which several of the Canons are quoted in that Council. Thus in the 4th Action, in the matter of Carosus and Dorotheus, who had acknowledged Dioscorus as Bishop, though he had been deposed from

his Bishopric," the holy Synod said, let the holy Canons of the Fathers be read, and inserted in the records; and Aetius the Archdeacon taking the book read the 83d Canon, If any Bishops, &c. And again the 84th Canon, concerning those who separate themselves, If any Presbyter, &c." These Canons are the 4th and 5th of Antioch. Again, in the 11th Action in the matter of Bassianus and Stephanus who disputed about the Bishopric of Ephesus, both requested the Canons to be read, " And the Judges said, Let the Canons be read. And Leontius Bishop of Magnesia read the 95th Canon, If any Bishop, &c., and again out of the same book the 96th Canon, If any Bishop," &c. These Canons are the 16th and 17th of Antioch. Now if we add together the different Canons in the Code of the Universal Church in the order in which they follow in the enumeration of them by the Council of Trullo, and in other documents, we find that the 4th and 5th of Antioch, are the 83d and 84th of the whole Code, and the 16th and 17th of Antioch, the 95th and 96th. Nice 20, Ancyra 25, Neocæsarea 14, Gangra 20; all which make 79. Next come those of Antioch, the 4th and 5th of which therefore will be respectively the 83d and 84th, and the 16th and 17th the 95th and 96th.