to the Archdeacon of Todi

On the First Decretal

Lateran Council IV, ch. 1

We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; three persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe,

Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by his omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil.

This holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation. And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Spirit of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to his divinity is immortal and impassable, according to his humanity was made passable and mortal.

Who suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But he descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both;

he will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works.

Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ.

There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.

In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of him what he has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.

But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation.

And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored.

Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.

Our Savior, sending his disciples to preach, enjoined three things upon them:

First, that they should teach the faith,

Second, that they should impart the sacraments to believers,

Third, that they should lead those imbued with the sacraments to observe divine commands;

For it is said in the last chapter of Matthew: "Go and teach all nations" regarding the first, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" regarding the second, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" regarding the third. Among these three, the doctrine of faith is fittingly placed first.

For faith is the foundation of all spiritual goods, according to the Apostle in Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the substance," that is, the foundation, "of things hoped for." It is also faith by which the soul is vivified by grace, according to the Apostle in Galatians 2:20, "The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God"; and Habakkuk 2:4, "The just shall live by his faith." It is through faith that the soul is purged of sins, Acts 15:9, "Purifying their hearts by faith." It is through faith that the soul is adorned with righteousness, Romans 3:22, "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ." It is through faith that the soul is betrothed to God, Hosea 2:20, "I will betroth you to me in faithfulness." It is through faith that men are adopted as sons of God, John 1:12, "He gave them power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name." It is through faith that we approach God, Hebrews 11:6, "Whoever would draw near to God must believe." Finally, it is through faith that men attain the prize of eternal life, according to John 6:40, "This is the will of my Father who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life." Therefore, it is fitting that Christ's vicar, about to set forth the commands by which the Church, founded on the preaching of the apostles, is peacefully governed, prefixes the title "On Faith."

But it must be considered that, while there are many articles of faith, some of which seem to pertain to the divinity itself, some to the human nature which the Son of God assumed in the unity of person, and others to the effects of divinity: nevertheless, the foundation of the whole faith is the first truth of divinity itself, since all other things are contained under faith insofar as they are in some way related to God. Hence the Lord says to his disciples in John 14:1, "You believe in God, believe also in me"; by which it is given to understand that Christ is believed in as God, as if faith were principally about God. Among those things we hold by faith about God, this is unique to the Christian faith: that we confess the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence; for under this profession we are sealed to Christ through baptism, as is evident from what was introduced above: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But other things we assert about God are found to be common to us and others, such as that God is one, almighty, and whatever else is held by faith about God which even Jews and Saracens do not deny. Therefore, to insinuate the proper and unique dogma of the Christian faith, he did not entitle the treatise on faith "On God," but "On the Trinity."

He adds "highest," because the divine Trinity holds a certain supremacy among the many trinities derived from it. For from that divine Trinity is derived a certain trinity in our soul, according to which we are in the image of God in memory, understanding, and will; other trinities are also derived from it in individual creatures insofar as they have a certain mode, species, and order, according to which a certain vestige of the divine Trinity is found in them, as Augustine teaches in his book On the Trinity. Therefore, to distinguish from all these trinities that descend from the divine, it is called "On the Highest Trinity."

But concerning this divine Trinity, various heretics, erring in various ways, have held different opinions: of whom Sabellius removed the distinction of persons, saying that there is one essence and one person of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but that they differ only in names; Arius, however, posited that the three persons have different substances and differ in dignity and duration: all of which and similar things the Catholic faith condemns. Because, therefore, he intends here to hand down what the Catholic faith holds about the highest Trinity and other things pertaining to faith, he adds "and the Catholic faith." The faith of the Church is called "catholic," that is, universal, as Boethius says in his book On the Trinity, "both because of the precepts of universal rules, and because its worship has spread through almost all the boundaries of the world," while the errors of heretics are confined within certain corners of the earth.

Because the holy Trinity is to be considered in faith, first it is necessary to know that there is a twofold act of faith, namely to believe in the heart and to confess with the mouth, according to Romans 10:10, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"; and each act requires something for its perfection. For the interior act of faithdemands firmness without any doubt, which firmness comes from the infallibility of divine truth on which faith rests, hence it is said in James 1:6, "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting." But the confession of faith should be simple, that is, without simulation, according to 1 Timothy 1:5, "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith"; it should also be simple, that is, without mixture of error, according to 1 Thessalonians 2:3, "For our appeal does not spring from error"; it should also be without variation, 2 Corinthians 1:18, "Our word to you has not been Yes and No." Therefore, as to the first he says "We firmly believe," as to the second "and simply confess."

Further, it should be considered that the articles of the Christian faith are computed by some as twelve, by others as fourteen. According to those who compute fourteen, seven articles pertain to the divinity, and seven to the humanity. Those that pertain to the divinity are distinguished thus: that one article is about the unity of the divine essence, which is touched upon in the creed when it is said "I believe in one God"; the second is about the person of the Father, which is touched upon when it is said "the Father almighty"; the third is about the person of the Son, which is touched upon when it is said "and in Jesus Christ His Son"; the fourth is about the person of the Holy Spirit, which is touched upon when it is said "and in the Holy Spirit"; the fifth is about the effect by which we are created by God in natural being, which is touched upon when it is said "creator of heaven and earth"; the sixth about the effect of God according to which we are recreated in the being of grace, which is touched upon when it is said "the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins," because through the grace of God we are gathered into the unity of the Church, we communicate in the sacraments, and we obtain the remission of sins; the seventh article is about the effect of God by which we are perfected in the being of glory both as to body and as to soul, and this is touched upon when it is said "the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting."

The seven articles pertaining to the incarnation are distinguished thus: that the first is about Christ's conception, which is touched upon when it is said "Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit"; the second is about His birth, which is touched upon when it is said "born of the Virgin Mary"; the third is about His passion, which is touched upon when it is said "suffered, died, and was buried"; the fourth is about the descent into hell, the fifth about the resurrection, the sixth about the ascension, the seventh about the coming to judgment.

But others, positing twelve articles, put one article about the three persons, and divide the article about the effect of glory into two, so that one article is about the resurrection of the flesh and another about eternal life; and thus the articles pertaining to the divinity are six. Likewise, they comprehend the conception and birth of Christ under one article, and thus also the articles about the humanity are six; hence all are twelve.

First, therefore, he pursues the first article about the unity of essence. Hence he first posits the unity of the divine essence "there is one only true God," according to John 17:3, "That they may know you, the only true God"; Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord": by which the error of the Gentiles positing many gods is excluded. He is called "true God," because He is essentially and naturally God; for some are called gods, not true ones, by adoption or by participation in divinity, or nominally, according to the Psalm, "I said, You are gods"; some are also called gods according to the opinion of those who err, according to the Psalm, "All the gods of the nations are demons."

Then he shows the excellence of the divine nature or essence. And first as to the fact that it is not comprehended by time, which is signified when it is said "eternal." For He is called eternal because He lacks beginning and end, and because His being does not vary through past and future; for nothing is subtracted from Him nor can anything new come to Him. Hence He says to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "I am who I am," because His being knows neither past nor future but always has being presently; and the Apostle says in Romans 16, "Now disclosed and through the prophetic writings made known according to the command of the eternal God."

Secondly, it is shown that God's greatness incomparably exceeds all magnitude of creatures when it is said "immeasurable." For that can be measured by something else which, if it exceeds in magnitude, yet the excess is according to some proportion: as the number two measures six in that three times two make six, but six exceeds two according to some proportion, according to which two measures six because it is triple of it. But God exceeds by the magnitude of His dignity every creature infinitely, and therefore He is called immeasurable because there is no commensuration or proportion of any creature to Him, hence it is said in the Psalm, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, and His greatness is unsearchable"; and in Baruch 3 it is said, "He is great and has no end, exalted and immeasurable."

Thirdly, it is shown that He exceeds all mutability when it is said "unchangeable," because there is no variation with Him, according to James 1:17, "With whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

Fourthly, it is shown that His power transcends all things when it is said "almighty," because He can simply do all things; hence He Himself says in Genesis 17:1, "I am God Almighty." And if anyone objects to what the Apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:13, "He remains faithful—for He cannot deny Himself," and thus He is not almighty: it should be said that to deny Himself is to fall short of Himself, but not to be able to fall short is not from a defect of power but from the perfection of power, just as even among men it is from great strength that someone cannot be overcome; in this, therefore, God is truly shown to be almighty in that He can do all things and can fail in nothing.

Fifthly, it is shown that He exceeds all reason and intellect when it is said "incomprehensible." For we are said to comprehend those things which we know perfectly as far as they are knowable; but no creature can know God as much as He is knowable, and therefore no creature can comprehend Him. Hence it is said in Job 11:7, "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?" as if to say: no; and Jeremiah 32:18 says, "O great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord of hosts, great in counsel and mighty in deed; whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of men."

Sixthly, it is shown that He exceeds all speech when it is said "ineffable," because no one can sufficiently speak forth His praise; hence it is said in Ecclesiasticus 43:33, "Exalt Him as much as you can, for He will surpass even that."

Then he approaches the article of the Trinity, first positing the names of the three persons when he says "Father and Son and Holy Spirit"; which are indeed expressed in Matthew 28, "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But concerning these three names, some have erred in different ways: for Sabellius said that Father and Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished only by names, saying that the same person is sometimes called Father, sometimes Son, sometimes Holy Spirit for different reasons; and to exclude this he adds "three indeed persons," for the person of the Father is other than that of the Son, other than that of the Holy Spirit. Arius, however, posited that Father and Son and Holy Spirit, just as they are diverse names, so are diverse substances; and to exclude this he adds "but one substance."

But because the term "substance" is used differently by us and by the Greeks, to avoid any possible deception in this matter, he adds "or nature." For among the Greeks, hypostasis, that is, substance, is taken as we use "person" for some subsisting thing which we call a suppositum or a thing of nature, as "this man" is a suppositum or thing of human nature; but among us, according to common usage, substance is called the essence or nature of a thing, as humanity is called the nature of man. Thus it is given to understand that in divinity there are three subsisting beings, namely Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but there is one nature in number simply in which they subsist: which cannot happen in human affairs. For Peter and Paul and John are indeed three subsisting in human nature, but human nature, although it is one in species in these three, is not one and the same in number: and therefore they are three men, not one man; but because in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit there is one divine nature in number, we say that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one God, and not three gods.

Someone might wrongly understand the one essence of the three persons to mean that one part of that nature was in the Father, another in the Son, another in the Holy Spirit: as if we were to say there is one water in three streams flowing from one source, so that one part of the water is in one stream, another in another, a third in the third. But if the nature of the three persons were like this, it would follow that the divine nature was composed of several parts; and therefore to exclude this he adds "entirely simple," that is, having no composition, for everything composite is posterior to the things of which it is composed: thus something would be prior to God, which is impossible.

But someone might ask: if the three persons have one simple nature, how then are the three persons distinguished? And responding to this, he adds "the Father from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit equally from both." Here it should be considered that whatever is said absolutely in divinity is common and one in the three persons, as when God is called good, wise, and all such things; but distinction is found only where something is found pertaining to the relation of origin. Because the Father is from no one, and according to this is called unbegotten; but the Son is from the Father through generation according to the Psalm, "Today I have begotten you," and according to this paternity is attributed to the Father and filiation to the Son; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, and according to this procession is attributed to the Holy Spirit, but to the Father and Son common spiration because they jointly spirate the Holy Spirit. Thus there are five notions according to which the distinctions of persons are designated in divinity, namely paternity by which it is shown that the Son is from the Father, filiation by which it is shown that the Son is from the Father;procession by which it is shown that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and Son, unbegottenness by which it is known that the Father is from no one, common spiration by which it is shown that the Father and Son jointly spirate the Holy Spirit.

But again a false thought might occur to someone that, because in human affairs the son began to be generated by the father from a certain point in time and his generation does not always last but is finished at a certain term of time, so it might also be with the origin of the divine persons: namely that the Son began to be generated by the Father at some time and at some time His generation was finished, and similarly for the Holy Spirit. And therefore to exclude this he adds "without beginning always and without end the Father generating, the Son being born, the Holy Spirit proceeding from both." An example of this can be found to some extent in creatures, although imperfect: for we see that a ray proceeds from the sun, and as soon as there was a sun a ray proceeded from it, nor will a ray ever cease to proceed from it as long as the sun exists; thus the Son proceeds from the Father as a ray from the sun, hence the Apostle says in Hebrews 1:3, "Who being the brightness of His glory." But the Holy Spirit proceeds from both as heat from the sun and ray, hence it is said in the Psalm, "There is nothing hidden from its heat." But this example falls short in that the sun did not always exist, and therefore its ray did not always proceed from it; but because God the Father always was, the Son always proceeded from Him, and the Holy Spirit from both.

Another example can be given in the human soul, in which the interior word conceived proceeds from memory and love proceeds from both; and so also the Son proceeds from the Father as His Word, and the Holy Spirit as the common Love of both. But this example falls short in two ways: first, because the human intellect did not always exist, and second, because it does not always actually conceive a word in its heart; but the divine intellect always was and always understands without interruption, hence the Word which is the Son always arises in it and Love which is the Holy Spirit always proceeds.

Because the Arian heretics postponed the Son to the Father and the Holy Spirit to both, he consequently excludes this. It should be considered that the Arians postponed the Son to the Father first as to essence, saying that the essence of the Father is more worthy than the essence of the Son; and to exclude this he adds "consubstantial," because there is one essence of the Father and Son differing in nothing. Secondly, as to magnitude—not that there is magnitude of mass in God, but magnitude of power which is the perfection of His goodness—,for they said the Father was greater than the Son even according to divinity, and to exclude this he adds "and coequal"; but according to humanity the Lord says in John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I." Thirdly, as to power, saying the Son was not omnipotent; and to exclude this he adds "and co-omnipotent." Fourthly, as to duration, because they said the Son did not always exist; and to exclude this he adds "coeternal." Fifthly, as to operation, for they said that the Father works through the Son as through His instrument or as through a minister; and to exclude this he adds "one principle of all things": for the Son is not another principle of things as if inferior to the Father, but both are one principle. And what has been said of the Son should be understood of the Holy Spirit.

Then he approaches another article which is about the creation of things, where he excludes various opinions. For there were some heretics like the Manicheans who posited two creators, one good who created invisible and spiritual creatures, another evil whom they say created all these visible and corporeal things. But the Catholic faith confesses that all things besides God, both visible and invisible, were created by God, hence Paul says in Acts 17:24, "God, who made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth," etc., and Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Hence to exclude this error he says "Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal." Another error was of those positing that God is indeed the first principle of the production of things, but that He did not create all things immediately but through angels this world was created: and this was the error of the Menandrians; and to exclude this error he adds "who by His omnipotent power," because by the power of God alone all creatures were produced according to the Psalm, "I will consider Your heavens, the works of Your fingers."

Another was the error of Origen positing that God from the beginning created only spiritual creatures, and afterwards when some of them sinned He created bodies to which spiritual substances were bound as if by chains: as if corporeal creatures were not produced from God's principal intention because it was good for them to be, but only to punish the sins of spiritual creatures, although it is said in Genesis 1:31, "God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good"; hence to exclude this he says that "He created both creatures together, namely spiritual and corporeal, that is, angelic and mundane."

Another error was of Aristotle positing indeed that all things were produced by God but from eternity, and that there was no beginning of time, although it is written in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth"; and to exclude this he adds "from the beginning of time." Another error was of Anaxagoras who posited indeed that the world was made by God from some beginning of time, but that the matter of the world pre-existed from eternity and was not made by God, although the Apostle says in Romans 4:17, "Who calls those things which be not as though they were"; and to exclude this he adds "from nothing."

There was also another error of Tertullian positing that the soul of man is corporeal, although the Apostle says in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, "May your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved," etc.: where he manifestly distinguishes soul and spirit from body; and to exclude this he adds "then," namely God created, "human," namely nature, "as if common, constituted of spirit and body": for man is composed of spiritual and corporeal nature.

But according to the aforementioned error of the Manicheans positing two principles, one good and one evil, the distinction was made not only regarding the creation of visible and invisible creatures, namely that invisibles are from the good God, but visibles from the evil one, but also regarding invisibles themselves. For they posited that the first principle was invisible and that certain invisible creatures were produced by it, which they said were naturally evil; and thus among the angels themselves there were some naturally good belonging to the good creation of the good God, who could not sin, and some naturally evil—whom we call demons—who could not not sin: against what is said in Job 4:18, "Behold, He put no trust in His servants; and His angels He charged with folly." Similarly they erred concerning human souls, saying that some were of good creation which naturally do good, some of evil creation which naturally do evil: against what is said in Ecclesiastes 7:29, "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." And therefore to exclude these he says "The devil," namely the principal one, "and other demons indeed were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves became evil," namely through free will, "man, however, sinned at the devil's suggestion," that is, not naturally but by his own will.

Then he approaches the article of the incarnation. And because "the gospel of Christ," as the Apostle says in Romans 1:2, "God had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures," he therefore premises about the foretelling of the prophets, about which also some erred. For the Manicheans and some otherheretics said the Old Testament was delivered not by the good God who is the Father of Christ but by an evil god, and consequently the doctrine of the Old Testament was always deadly: which is manifestly shown to be false by the fact that the Lord says in John 2:16, speaking of the temple of the Jews, "Make not My Father's house a house of merchandise," where He manifestly calls His Father the God of the Old Testament who was worshipped in the temple of the Jews. But the Arians said that in the Old Testament the Son appeared in various visions, but not the Father: which is manifestly shown to be false by the fact that to Abraham three men appeared as a figure of the Trinity, as we read in Genesis 18. The Cataphrygians also posited that the prophets of the Old Testament spoke as if seized, not understanding what they were saying: against what is said in Daniel 10:1, "Understanding is needed in the vision." Therefore to exclude these errors he says that "This Holy Trinity," about which it has been spoken, which is "according to common essence undivided and according to personal properties distinct, through Moses and the holy prophets and other servants of His": where he seems to distinguish the Old Testament, namely into the law which was given through Moses, into the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., and into those who wrote the hagiographa like Solomon, Job and others of this kind whom he here names servants of God; according to which distinction the Lord says in Luke 24, "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

"According to a most orderly disposition of times": which is put to exclude the objection of the Gentiles who ridiculed the Christian faith from this that after many times as if suddenly it came into God's mind to give the law of the gospel to men; but it was not sudden but disposed by convenient ordination that first to the human race through the law and prophets a foretelling about Christ should be made, as if to men then childish and less educated, according to Galatians 3:24, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." And this is what he says that "according to a most orderly disposition of times He gave salutary doctrine to the human race," not deadly as the Manicheans said.

These things therefore being premised, he approaches explaining the mystery of the incarnation itself: in which also he excludes various errors. Where first it should be known that the Sabellians, confusing the divine persons, conceded that the Father was incarnate, because they said the same person was Father and Son; on the contrary, however, the Arians, dividing the substance of divinity, from the fact that the Son is incarnate and not the Father wanted to conclude that the essence of the Father and of the Son was different and the operation of both different. But the Catholic faith, proceeding by a middle way between both,because of the distinction of persons says the Son alone was incarnate, for the incarnation was made by union in person not in nature, as is said below; but because of the unity of nature and operation in the three persons says the whole Trinity operated the incarnation: and this is what he says "and at length the only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ was incarnate by the whole Trinity in common."

There was also the error of Helvidius who posited that Mary indeed conceived and bore as a virgin, but after the birth did not always remain a virgin but afterwards bore other sons from Joseph; and to exclude this he says "from Mary ever virgin." But others, namely the Ebionites, erred more gravely saying that Christ was also conceived from the seed of Joseph; to exclude which it is added "was conceived by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit." But there were others, namely the Manicheans, who said Christ did not take true flesh but phantasmic, against what the Lord said to the disciples who thought after the resurrection that He was a phantom, Luke 24, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have"; to exclude which he says "was made true man." But the Arians said that the Son of God assumed only flesh without a soul and that the Word was to the flesh in place of a soul; but afterwards the Apollinarists said He had only a sensitive soul, against what is said in Matthew 26:38, "My soul is sorrowful even unto death," and John 10:18, "I have power to lay down my life"; and therefore to exclude this he says "from a rational soul." But others, namely the followers of Valentinus, posited that Christ's body was not assumed from the Virgin but brought from heaven, against what is said in Galatians 4:4, "Made of a woman," and Romans 1:3, "Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"; and to exclude this he says "and composed of human flesh."

But concerning the union itself, Nestorius and Eutyches erred in contrary ways. Of whom Nestorius posited that the union was made only according to indwelling of grace, as also in other saints God is said to be through indwelling grace, so that of God and man there would be another and another person: against what is said in John 1:14, "The Word was made flesh," that is, the Son of God was made man, which cannot be said of others whom He inhabits through grace; but Eutyches posited that the union of God and man was made into one nature, so namely that he asserted Christ was indeed from two natures but not in two, because he intended that before the incarnation there were two natures of God and man but after the incarnation one nature was made: hence to exclude both he says "one person in two natures more manifestly demonstrated the way of life." For there were some followers of Eutyches, namely Theodosius and Gaianus, who positing one nature in Christ as if made from divinity andhumanity erred in diverse ways: for Theodosius posited that nature to be corruptible and passible, but Gaianus incorruptible and impassible; and to exclude these errors he adds "Who according to divinity is immortal and impassible, according to humanity was made passible and mortal."

Then he approaches the article of the passion, saying "Who also for the salvation of the human race suffered and died on the wood of the cross"; after which he places the article about the descent into hell, saying "he descended into hell." Then he places the article about Christ's resurrection "and rose from the dead," and then he places the article about the ascension, saying "ascended into heaven." But it should be noted that the aforementioned error of Arius and Apollinaris cannot preserve the truth of these articles: for if Christ did not have a soul but the Word was in place of a soul for the flesh and in death was separated from the flesh, it follows that what belongs to the flesh cannot be said of the Son of God, hence it cannot be said that the Son of God lay in the tomb or that he rose from the dead; similarly it also cannot be said that he descended into hell, because to divinity in itself, since it is entirely immobile, ascending and descending cannot be fitting. And therefore to exclude the aforementioned error he explains the truth of the aforementioned articles, adding "but he descended in soul and rose in flesh, and ascended equally in both." For in Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh, but the divinity remained indivisibly united to both, namely to the soul and flesh: hence when Christ's soul descended to hell, the Son of God is said to have descended according to the soul united to him. Similarly also when Christ's flesh, which in death had in some way fallen, rose to life, the Son of God, who according to divine nature could not die, is said to have risen according to the flesh through this that the flesh again took up the soul; and thus according to both, that is according to soul and body, he ascended into heaven.

Then he places the article about the coming to judgment, saying "To come at the end to judge the living and the dead." He calls living those who will be found alive at the coming of the Judge, but dead those who had died before: which is not to be understood as if there will be some who do not die, but because in the very coming of the Judge they will die and immediately rise again; or understand living and dead spiritually, that is, the just and sinners. And because there were some positing that in the final judgment some will be saved not by their own merits but given by the prayers of some saints, therefore to exclude this he adds "and to render to each according to his merits, both to the reprobate and to the elect."

Then he places the article of general resurrection, which pertains to the effect of glory, saying "Who all," both reprobate and elect, "will rise again with their own proper bodies which they now bear": which is put to exclude the error of certain heretics who say that those rising again will not have the same bodies which they now put off through death but certain bodies brought from heaven, which is against what the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 15:53, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption." Consequently he assigns the reason for the resumption of bodies when he says "that they may receive according to their works, whether they have done good or evil"; because man has worked either well or ill in soul and body together, it is just that in both together he be damned or rewarded. And because Origen posited that the punishment of the damned will not be perpetual, similarly neither the glory of the blessed, therefore to exclude this he says "and those with the devil eternal punishment, and these with Christ everlasting glory": for just as "through the envy of the devil death entered into the world," as is said in Wisdom 2:24, so through the grace of Christ we are restored to life according to John 10:10, "I have come that they may have life, and have it more abundantly."

Then he approaches the article which is about the effect of grace; and first he touches on the effect of grace as to the unity of the Church when he says "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." But the unity of the Church is chiefly because of the unity of faith, for the Church is nothing other than the congregation of the faithful; and because without faith it is impossible to please God, therefore outside the Church no place of salvation is open to anyone. But the salvation of the faithful is consummated through the sacraments of the Church in which the power of Christ's passion operates, and therefore consequently he expounds what the Catholic faith holds concerning the sacraments of the Church.

And first concerning the Eucharist when he says "In which," namely the Church, "Christ himself is both priest and sacrifice," because he himself offered himself on the altar of the cross "an oblation and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor," as is said in Ephesians 5:2; in commemoration of which sacrifice daily in the Church a sacrifice is offered under the sacrament of bread and wine. Concerning which sacrament he determines three things: first indeed the truth of the thing contained under the sacrament when he says "Whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine." He says "truly" to exclude the error of some who said that in this sacrament the body of Christ is not according to the truth of the thing, but only according to figure or as in a sign. He says "under the species of bread andwine" to exclude the error of some who said that in the sacrament of the altar the substance of bread and the substance of the body of Christ are contained together, which is against the word of the Lord saying "This is my body," for according to this it would rather be saying "Here is my body"; therefore to show that in this sacrament the substance of bread and wine does not remain but only the species, that is, accidents without a subject, he says "under the species of bread and wine."

Secondly he shows how the body of Christ begins to be under the sacrament, namely through this that the substance of bread is miraculously converted into the substance of the body of Christ and the substance of wine into the substance of blood; and this is what he says "the bread being transubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood by divine power, that to perfect the mystery of unity," that is to celebrate this sacrament which is a sign of ecclesiastical unity, "we ourselves may receive of his what he himself received of ours"; for in this sacrament we receive of the body and blood of Christ which the Son of God received from our nature.

Thirdly he determines the minister of this sacrament, in which also he touches on the sacrament of order; and this is what he says "And indeed this sacrament no one can make unless he has been rightly ordained a priest," which is against the heresy of the Poor Men of Lyons who say that any man can make this sacrament. He adds "according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ himself granted to the Apostles and their successors," which can be understood in two ways: either because a rightly ordained priest receives the keys of the Church, or because according to the power of the keys the priestly order is conferred; but the keys of the Church are the authority of discerning and the power of judging.

Then he approaches the sacrament of baptism.

Concerning which he first touches on the form when he says "But the sacrament of baptism, which at the invocation of the undivided Trinity, namely of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"; for this is the form of baptism: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," as is handed down in the last chapter of Matthew.

Secondly the matter is placed when it is said "is consecrated in water": for this sacrament cannot be performed in any other liquid except in true water.

Thirdly he shows to whom this sacrament is to be conferred when he says "both to infants and to adults": which is put to exclude the error of the Pelagians, who said that infants do not have original sin on account of which it would be necessary for them to be washed by baptism.

Fourthly he touches on the minister of this sacrament when he says "in the form of the Church by whomever rightly conferred profits unto salvation": which is against the error of the Donatists, who said that those baptized by heretics did not receive true baptism but were to be rebaptized; but the Catholic faith recognizes true baptism by whomever it has been conferred in the form of the Church stated above.

Then he approaches the sacrament of penance, saying "And if after the reception of baptism anyone should have fallen into sin, through true penance he can always be restored": which is put to exclude the error of the Novatians, who said that those sinning after baptism cannot be restored through penance.

Then he approaches the sacrament of matrimony, saying "Not only virgins and the continent but also the married, pleasing God through right faith and good work, merit to attain eternal beatitude": which is put to exclude the error of the Tatians and Manicheans who condemned marriage.

But of the other sacraments he makes no mention, because concerning them there was no special error.

On the Second Decretal

Lateran Council IV, ch. 2

We condemn, therefore, and reprobate the book or tract which Abott Joachim published against Master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essense of the Trinity, calling him heretical and insane because he said in his Sentences that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are some supreme entity in which there is no begetting, no begotten, and no proceeding. Whence he asserts that he (Peter Lombard) attributed to God not so much a trinity as a quaternity, namely, three persons and that common essense as a fourth, clearly protesting that there is no entity that is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, neither is it essense or substance or nature, though he concedes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one essense, one substance, and one nature. But he says that such a unity is not a true and proper unity, but rather a collective one or one by way of similitude, as many men are called one people and many faithful one Church, according to the words: the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32); and: he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit with him (1 Cor 6:17). Similarly: he that planteth and he that watereth, are one (1 Cor 3:8); and: so we being many, are one body in Christ (Rom 12:5). Again in the book of Kings: my people and thy people are one (Ruth 1:16). To strengthen this teaching he cites that most important word which Christ spoke concerning the faithful in the Gospel: I will, Father, that they may be one in us, as we also are one, that they may be made perfect in one (John 17:22-23). For the faithful of Christ, he says, are not one in the sense that they are some one thing that is common to all, but in the sense that they constitute one Church by reason of the unity of the Catholic faith and one kingdom by reason of the union of indissoluble charity, as we read in the canonical Epistle of St. John: there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one (1 John 5:7). And immediately it is added: and there are three who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one (1 John 5:8), as it is found in some codices.

But we, with the approval of the holy and general council, believe and confess with Peter (Lombard) that there is one supreme entity, incomprehensible and ineffable, which is truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, together three persons and each one of them singly.

And thus in God there is only trinity, not quaternity, because each of the three persons is that entity, namely, substance, essense, or divine nature, which alone is the principle of the universe and besides which there is no other.

And that entity is not the one begetting or the one begotten or the one proceeding, but it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Ghost who proceeds, in order that there may be distinctions in the persons and unity in the nature.

Though, therefore, the Father is one, and the Son is another, and the Holy Ghost is another, yet they are not different; but that which is the Father, that is the Son, and that is the Holy Ghost, absolutely the same, since according to the Catholic and orthodox faith they are believed to be consubstantial.

For the Father begetting the Son from eternity imparted to him his own substance, as he himself testifies: that which my Father hath given me, is greater than all (John 10:29). And it cannot be said that he gave to him a part of his substance and retained a part for himself, since the substance of the Father is indivisible, that is, absolutely simple. But neither can it be said that Father in begetting transferred his substance to the Son, as if he gave it to the Son without retaining it for himself, otherwise he would cease to be a substance. It is evident, therefore, that the Son in being begotten received without any diminution the substance of the Father and thus the Father and Son as well as the Holy Ghost proceeding from both are the same entity.

When therefore the Truth prays to the Father for the faithful, saying: I will that they be one in us, even as we are one (John 17:22), this term one is understood first for the faithful, as implying a union of charity in grace, then for the divine persons, as implying a unity of identity in nature; as the Truth says in another place: be you perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48); as if he would say more clearly: be perfect by the perfection of grace as your heavenly Father is perfect by the perfection of nature, namely, each in his own way, because between the creator and the creature there cannot be a likeness so great that the unlikeness is not greater. If therefore anyone presume to defend or approve the teaching of the aforesaid Joachim on this point, let him be repressed by all as a heretic.

In this, however, we do not wish to derogate in anything from the monastery of Flora, which Joachim himself founded, since therein is both the regular life and salutary observance, but chiefly because the same Joachim ordered that his writings be submitted to us to be approved or corrected by the judgment of the Apostolic See, dictating a letter which he subscribed with his own hand, in which he firmly confesses that he holds that faith which the Roman Church holds, which by the will of God is the mother and mistress of all the faithful. We also reprobate and condemn the perverse teaching of the impious Amalric de Bene, whose mind the father of lies has so darkened that his teaching is to be regarded not so much heretical as insane.

"We therefore condemn and reject," etc. Having expounded the form of the Catholic faith in the preceding, in this decretal the error of Joachim is condemned, who wished to repudiate the doctrine of Master Peter Lombard concerning the unity of the divine essence and the Trinity of persons. And that the intention of both may be more fully seen, we must take what was said in the preceding, namely that the Holy Trinity is undivided according to the common essence and discrete according to the personal properties because, as was explained above, the person of the Father is not distinguished from the person of the Son except by paternity and filiation, insofar as the Father begot the Son and the Son is begotten by the Father; and similarly the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Father and the Son insofar as He proceeds from both: therefore a person in the divine is distinguished insofar as the person generates or is generated or proceeds. If therefore the divine essence generates or is generatedor proceeds, it follows that it is distinguished in three persons and that, just as "the person of the Father is other, other is that of the Son, other that of the Holy Spirit," so also their substance or essence would be other and other: which the Nicene Synod condemned in Arius, asserting the Son to be homoousios with the Father, that is, co-essential and consubstantial. Which Master Peter, following, taught that there is one essence or substance common to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit which neither generates nor is generated nor proceeds, so that it is entirely undistinguished, as is clear in the fifth distinction of his first book of Sentences.

But Joachim, abbot of the monastery of Flora, not well understanding the words of the aforesaid master, as being unskilled in the subtle dogmas of faith, considered the aforesaid doctrine of Master Peter heretical, imputing to him that he was introducing a quaternity in the divine by positing three persons and a common essence, which he believed was thus posited by Master Peter as if something distinct from the three persons, so that it could be said to be as it were a fourth; for he believed that from this very fact that the divine essence is said to be neither generating nor generated nor proceeding, it is distinguished from the Father who generates and from the Son who is generated and from the Holy Spirit who proceeds. And therefore Joachim himself protested that in the divine there is not any one thing which is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, whether that one thing be called substance or essence or nature, for by these three names we understand the same thing. But lest he should seem to depart totally from the faith of the Nicene Synod, he conceded that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one essence, one substance, one nature, as if one essence could be predicated of three persons so that we say "Three persons are one essence," but not conversely so that it be said "One essence is three persons."

But even in this very thing that he conceded three persons to be one essence or substance or nature, he did not have a sound understanding. For he did not posit the unity of essence of the three persons to be true, real and simple, but as it were similitudinary and collective, that is, as if congregated from many, just as many men are called one people and many faithful are called one Church according to Acts 4:32, "The multitude of believers had one heart and one soul," and according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 6:17, "He who adheres to God is one spirit," namely with Him; and 1 Corinthians 3:8, "He who plants and he who waters are one," 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12:5, "We are all one body in Christ," and 3 Kings 22:5, "Jehoshaphat king of Judah said to the king of Israel: My people and your people are one." In all of which a collective unity is signified and not a true and simple one.

But that according to this mode it would be said to be one substance or essence or nature of the three persons, he strove to prove by certain authorities. For it is said in John 17:22 that the Lord, praying for His faithful to the Father, said among other things, "I will, Father, that they," namely my faithful, "may be one in us," that is, in me and in you through faith and charity, "as we also are one, that" at length in the fatherland "they may be made perfect in one." From which he argued thus: "The faithful of Christ are not so one that there is any one thing which is common to all, but they are in a certain way one," that is, collectively, "that is, one Church because of the unity of the Catholic faith, and at length" they will be in the fatherland "one kingdom because of the union of indissoluble charity," because the charity of the way can be dissolved through sin, the charity of the fatherland is indissoluble.

He also adduced for the assertion of his opinion what is said in 1 John 5:7, "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit": the Father indeed when He said "This is my beloved Son," and this in baptism as is had in Matthew 3:17, and in the transfiguration as is had in Matthew 17:5; the Son gave testimony to the Christian faith through doctrine and miracles, whence He said in John 8:18, "I give testimony of myself, and the Father that sent me gives testimony of me"; the Holy Spirit gave testimony appearing in the form of a dove over Christ in baptism and through His coming upon the disciples of Christ. And to insinuate the unity of the three persons it is added, "And these three are one," which indeed is said because of the unity of essence. But Joachim, wishing perversely to draw this to the unity of charity and consent, adduced the consequent authority, for it is added there, "And there are three that give testimony on earth, namely the spirit and the water and the blood"; in some books it is added, "and these three are one," but this is not had in true copies, but in some books it is said to have been added by Arian heretics to pervert the sound understanding of the aforesaid authority concerning the essential unity of the three persons. Similarly also the Arians used that authority "That they may be one in us as we also are one" to show that the Father and Son are not one except according to the consent of love as we also are, as is clear through Augustine and Hilary who say this was the perverse sense of the Arians; whence it is manifest that Joachim fell into the error of the Arians, although not pertinaciously because he subjected his writings to the judgment of the Apostolic See, as is said below. And therefore consequently the determination of the Council for the truth is placed.

In which determination indeed he does six things.

First indeed he asserts the truth which Peter taught, namely that the divine essence "is a certain highest thing incomprehensible" to thought "and ineffable" in word, of which truly are predicated "three persons both together and singly." For it can be truly said that the divine essence is Father and Son and Holy Spirit; and again it is truly said "The divine essence is the Father, the divine essence is the Son, the divine essence is the Holy Spirit." Which indeed does not occur in us; for the essence of Peter is not Peter, but the essence of God the Father is the Father Himself, because Peter is composed of many things, but not the person of the Father nor the person of the Son nor the person of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly where he says "And therefore in God" etc., he solves the reason which Joachim adduced for himself. For it is to be considered that nothing is enumerated with others unless it is distinguished from them; hence because animal is not distinguished from man, horse and ox, each of which is an animal, therefore we cannot say that man, horse and ox and animal are four, but they are only three because each of them is an animal: so "because each of the three persons is that thing, namely the divine substance, essence or nature," it cannot be said that the three persons and that thing are four, because that thing is not something other than the three persons. Which indeed he proves by this that "only" the divine essence "is the principle" creating all things, so that "nothing can be found besides the divine essence" which either is not the same with the divine essence or is not created by it; but the three persons are not created by the divine essence because "uncreated Father, uncreated Son, uncreated Holy Spirit," rather we can say that the Father is the principle of all things, and similarly the Son and similarly the Holy Spirit. Whence it is manifest that the divine essence is not something other than the three persons: hence there is not a quaternity in the divine but a Trinity.

But because Joachim believed that from the sayings of Master Peter it would follow that the essence was other than the three persons, therefore thirdly when he says "And that thing is not generating" etc., he shows that this does not follow. For it is true that we cannot say 'The divine essence is generating or generated or proceeding', just as we cannot say that the divine essence is distinct in three persons; for from this something is distinct in the divine that it is generating, generated or proceeding, as has been said. We can however say that the divine essence is He who is distinguished, that is, the Father who is distinguished from the Son; and similarly we can say that "the divine essence is the Father who generates, and is the Son who is begotten, and is the Holy Spirit who proceeds": so namely that the distinctions imported by these three adjectives generating, generated and proceeding determine the persons themselves of which theaforesaid adjectives are predicated, but not the essence or nature which is not distinguished. Therefore it does not follow as Joachim thought: the essence is not generating; the Father is generating, therefore the essence is not the Father; because even if the essence does not generate, it is nevertheless He who generates, that is, the Father, and similarly the essence is not born but is He who is born, that is, the Son, nor does it proceed but is He who proceeds, that is, the Holy Spirit.

Fourthly when he says "Although therefore another" etc., he concludes how according to the Catholic faith the distinction of persons is to be signified. Concerning which it is to be considered that in the divine the masculine gender refers to the person, but the neuter gender refers to the essence or nature; just as also in human affairs through the masculine gender we ask about the person, like 'Who is running? Peter', through the neuter gender we ask about the nature, like 'What is man? A rational mortal animal'. Because therefore in the divine the essence is undistinguished, but the persons distinct, therefore we use distinctive names in the divine in the masculine gender, but not in the neuter; for we say that "although the Father is other, the Son other, the Holy Spirit other, yet they are not other and other," because there is not otherness in essence even if there is otherness in persons, but "that same which is the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit," because it is the same essence of the three. And because of this they are "altogether the same," if 'same' is of the neuter gender because this pertains to the identity of essence, they are not 'the same' in the masculine because this would take away the distinction of persons. But it is necessary that they be the same in the neuter "that they may be believed to be consubstantial according to the orthodox faith," that is, rightly glorying, from orthos which is right and doxa which is glory, "and catholic," that is universal as was expounded above; for this was determined in the Nicene Synod that the Son is homoousios, that is consubstantial, with the Father.

Fifthly when he says "For the Father from eternity" etc., he proves that one and the same is the essence of the three persons. "For the Father in generating the Son gave Him His substance," since to generate is nothing other than to produce another from one's substance; and just as from eternity the Father begot the Son not indeed previously non-existent, so also the Father from eternity gave substance to the Son, not indeed as if previously not having it but because from eternity He had it from another, that is, from the Father. And concerning this giving the Son of God Himself testifies in John 10:29, "That which my Father has given me is greater than all"; for that which is greatest is the divine essence. It should be known however that it is one way in human generation and another indivine: because human nature is divisible, a generating man can transfuse part of his substance into the son; but the divine nature is simple and indivisible, and therefore he adds that "it cannot be said that the Father gave part of His substance to the Son." Similarly also it cannot be said that the Father giving His substance to the Son did not retain it for Himself, because thus the Father Himself would have ceased to be the divine substance; for in corporeal things what is given is not retained, just as he who gives a horse does not retain it, but in spiritual things something is both given and retained at the same time, just as he who communicates knowledge to another retains it. "It is clear therefore that the Son without any diminution received in being born the substance of the Father" and the Father retains it, whence it follows that "the Father and Son have the same substance"; and the same reason is for the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both. But the Father is His substance because there is no composition in Him, and similarly the Son and Holy Spirit; since therefore there is one essence of the three, it follows that "one thing" which is the divine essence "is Father and Son and Holy Spirit": and therefore irrefragably is proved according to the Catholic faith the opinion of Master Peter Lombard, and consequently the saying of Joachim is invalidated.

Sixthly when he says, when therefore truth for the faithful, he expounds the authorities which Joachim, wrongly understood, adduced for himself. For that which the Lord praying for the faithful says "I will that they may be one in us as we also are one," Joachim so adduced as if in the same way this which is said 'one' should be taken in us and in the divine persons; but this is false, because in the faithful it is so taken that the union of charity through grace is understood, but in the divine persons it is so taken that the unity of the same nature is understood. And he proves this by a similar because the Lord says in Matthew 5:48, be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect; yet the mode of perfection is not the same in human and divine, because there cannot be so great a similitude between Creator and creature that a greater dissimilitude is not found there, because of this that the creature is infinitely distant from God.