Expositio super symbolum Apostolorum

I believe in God the Father almighty.

Here it should be noted that there is one faith of knowledge, by which we believe that God exists, which even demons have, and they tremble.¹ And this is "to believe God exists." There is another faith of consent, by which we believe God and his words. Only the faithful have this, namely to believe God. There is another faith of confidence, namely to believe in God, which only the just have. For to believe in God is to tend toward him by faith and charity.

Hence it is asked whether the sinner who is in the church in number but not in merit, in name but not in devotion, in place but not in soul, in body but not in mind, lies when he says "I believe in God." To this we answer as follows: in utterances of this kind, namely in the Lord's Prayer and the Creed, the faithful one speaks not in his own person but in the person of the general church, and so he does not lie. Hence too in the Mass the priest does not say "I pray" in the singular but "let us pray" in the plural.

Or we can say that if a sinner speaks this in his own person, he is either sinning under God or against God. He sins under God who, although he is held under the sin of a wicked habit, nevertheless grieves that he is under sin and applies himself to fasting and almsgiving, saying with the prophet, "I have longed to desire your justifications,"² and with the apostle, "To will is present with me, but to accomplish what is good I do not find."³ Such a one in a certain way believes in God because by a certain natural piety he tends toward God, and he can say: I long to believe in God. But he who is obstinate and thus sins against God, if he says this in his own person, lies and sins. Of such a one it is said: he who prays without devotion asks judgment upon himself.

By what follows, "in God" in the singular, and not "in gods," the error of the pagans and the heresy of the semi-Arians is refuted. For the pagans, given over only to the mirrors of the senses and not relying on the guidance of reason, considering only visible things, did not, through the things that were made, comprehend the invisible; rather they called only the inner causes, namely the powers of things, "god." Thus they called the power of creating wine Bacchus, the power of producing crops Ceres, and so on.

The theologians, however, led by a deeper investigation of reason and aided by divine inspiration, comprehended the invisible through the things that were made, considering that there is one true cause, the most causal of all causes, and one form, the most formal of all forms, from which every cause and every form proceeds.

By this word, then, when it is said "I believe in God," the pagans and the heresy of the semi-Arians are confounded. For the latter said that there are three properties in three persons, and they said the three persons were one God by reason of conformity, not of unity.

The Father almighty.

In this a threefold fatherhood is suggested: the fatherhood of creation, of re-creation, and of generation. Of creation, I say, because God is said to be the father of all things. By this the error of Epicurus is refuted, who said that no one was the father of all things, but that the world had its beginning from the void and from atoms.

The fatherhood of re-creation is also suggested, by which God is said to be the father of the just through re-creation. By this the Pelagian heresy is confounded, which says that man is justified by free will and not by the grace of God.

The fatherhood of generation is also suggested, because he is the father of his only-begotten Son. By this the heresy of Arius is refuted, who taught that Christ was the adopted son of God. It follows:

Almighty.

Although the three persons are one omnipotence, one almighty, nevertheless this name, "power," is not appropriated as the very thing named to the Father for many reasons. Either because whatever exists has its being from the Father, through creation, as does any creature, or through spiration, as does the Holy Spirit, or through generation, as does the Son; or so that the Father might not be believed to be less powerful than the Son when it is heard that he is the Son's father, since in carnal generation a father worn down by old age is usually less powerful than his son.

God is said to be almighty because he can do all things whose doing is a power. We say this to distinguish from sins, whose doing is a weakness. God is also called almighty because he can do all things that it is fitting for him to be able to do. I say this against the heretics who taught that Christ was not almighty because, although he willed all to be saved, he did not save all, though envy is far removed from him. Nor did he do all the good things it would be good to do. For if he could do them, he would do them. It follows:

Creator of heaven and earth,

that is, of spiritual and corporeal things. By this especially the error of the Manichean is refuted, who taught that only spiritual things were from God and asserted that corporeal things were made by the prince of darkness. Or by "heaven" are understood those luminaries that are above the moon, and by "earth" those that are below.

By this the error of those is confounded who said that God has no care for these lower things, since they are moved by various motions and act by chance, and are not created by God. But those things that are above the moon, because they are unchangeable and hold the highest peace in the highest place, they said are ruled by God and were made by him.

And note that it says "creator," not "maker." For to create is one thing, to procreate another, and to make another. For there is a threefold craftsman: the divine craftsman, the natural craftsman, and the human craftsman. God, who is the highest craftsman, works from nothing, not by means of a lower cause but by his own authority alone. Hence in his operation neither does matter precede form nor form matter; rather, in one and the same moment matter is supplied to form and form is impressed upon matter.

Hence the creation of the soul is properly called his work because the soul is not made from anything but is created from nothing. Hence the working of God is properly called creation, as it were a concretion; created works, as it were things concreted; the worker, a creator, as it were one working concretely.

Nature is placed in the second rank because it imitates the one who works, but from preexisting matter. For nature is a power placed in lower causes, producing like things from like. The work of nature, then, is said to be that which comes about through the ministry of lower causes, such as heat, moisture, and the like. The working of nature, then, is called procreation, as it were a creation carried forward from preexisting matter; its work is a procreated thing, and it itself a procreator. Man, however, imitating from afar the footsteps of these craftsmen, works upon preexisting matter, whose working, so to speak, can be called making; his work, a made thing; the worker, a maker.

By this, then, that God is called creator, the error of two men is refuted, namely of Plato and of Aristotle. For Plato said that there are three coeternal principles of things: the supreme principle of things, which he called *** that is, the universal God, or *** that is, the first father. He also spoke of a primordial matter in which he worked, which he called hyle, and the notions of eternal things according to which he worked, which he called ideas.

Aristotle said there are two eternal principles of things: form and matter; and a third, the working cause, calling this matter itself the world with its form, which he believed to have been made from eternity. He called "form" the wisdom of the highest craftsman. He called the "working cause" the highest craftsman, whom he believed to have worked in the world from eternity. The error of these men, then, is refuted when it is said "creator of heaven and earth."

And it should be known that this article was composed by the foremost of the apostles, namely Peter, and it is the first. To this article is reduced the first article of the Nicene Creed, in which it is said "I believe in one God." That article was composed for supplementing and adding, and for expounding and for weakening heresies. For where it says "I believe in one God," a supplement was made; where the exposition of visible things is added, an addition was made; and thus a weakening of the heretics.

Here it is asked whether these belong to one article or to several. For it seems to belong to a different article to believe that God is one and to believe that he is the almighty Father, or the creator of heaven and earth. To this we answer that all those things that are in the catholic faith so cohere with one another that one is understood in the other. Since, therefore, it is the same thing to believe in the almighty Father and in the creator of heaven and earth, we say that these belong to one article.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

Just as the first article pertains to the Father, so the second pertains to the Son. And just as the first was composed by Peter, so the second was composed by his companion Paul. He says therefore:

And in Jesus.

Jesus in Hebrew, soter in Greek, saluator in Latin. This name fits the Son insofar as he is God, because by divine authority he saved the world. It also suggests human nature, by whose ministry he accomplished the mystery of our redemption. It follows:

Christ.

Christ in Greek, Messiah in Hebrew, anointed in Latin. This is appropriated to him, although elsewhere this name "Christ" is used as an adjective and an appellative. Hence in the Old Testament kings and priests were called "christs," that is, anointed ones, because they alone were anointed. But this name Christ was given to him from an event, and thus it is his surname, because he was anointed with the oil of gladness above his companions.¹ Hence he was not always called Christ, but from the point at which, according to his human nature, he was anointed, just as Scipio was not called Africanus from his birth but after he came to Africa.

Since, then, in these two names two natures of Christ are understood, the heresy of Eutyches is confounded, who taught that Christ was not of diverse natures but of one nature in which two were confused, the divine and the human, neither the divine truly divine nor the human truly human, but made one out of the mixture of the two. Just as mead is a mixture of water and honey, and yet the water there is not water, nor is the honey honey, but from both mead is made. It follows:

His only Son,

namely of the Father, of whom it was said "I believe in God the Father." Christ is called God's only Son against the view of those who said that the faithful are sons of God by the same reasoning as Christ, namely by adoption, not by the truth of nature. Hence they also said: what dignity does Christ claim for himself above other men in being the Son of God, when we too, by the same reasoning, can be sons of God if we wish?

But he himself is the only Son of God by the truth of nature, others by the bestowal of grace, and therefore he himself is our Lord, because he himself is full of grace and truth,² and of his fullness we have all received.³ He is also spiritually our Lord and God, namely of the faithful, of whom he is God not only through creation but also through re-creation. Hence it is added:

Our Lord.

Into this article the second article of the Nicene Creed is reduced, which, as has been said, was composed for three reasons: for supplementing, for expounding, for weakening heresies. Hence it says And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, which is what is said in the aforesaid article, "And in Jesus Christ." And to show from whom he was born, it follows, And born of the Father. And lest it be believed that he was born of the Father in time, as Arius falsely taught, who said he had his origin in the beginning of time so that all things might be made in him, it follows, Before all ages, that is, eternally, so that through this reaching back before time we might understand eternity, and so that his true and natural birth might be understood, in which what is begotten is properly of the same nature as the begetter.

It follows, God from God, light from light, true God from true God. What follows is inculcated for a greater expression of his true birth, especially against Arius, who denied that Christ was the true Son of God, whose heresy flourished greatly in the early church. To weaken it, the early fathers said many things by way of insistence. Hence it follows, Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father. This too is said against Arius, who taught that the Son of God was made by the Father, not begotten, and that, because begotten of the Father, he is therefore consubstantial with the Father.

Note that this preposition "con-," which is a conjoining one, denotes not the identity of substance nor mere conformity, just as the pronoun "same" denotes identity, when it is said the Son is consubstantial with the Father, that is, of the same singular nature with the Father; but it denotes conformity when it is said the Son is consubstantial with his mother.

Hence John Damascene says that Christ is homoousios with the Father and homoousios with his mother, that is, of one substance with the Father and with the mother, and because he is consubstantial with the Father. Because by authority all things are from the Father, the same things are also from the Son, and so it follows, Through whom all things were made. Here too the error of the Manichean is confounded, who taught that only invisible things were from Christ, not visible ones. The error of certain others is also refuted, who say that good actions are from Christ but not bad ones, even insofar as they exist, whereas Saint Augustine says: God makes it so that men do the things that do not fit together, but they themselves make it so that the things they do do not fit together.

Likewise an authority says, on that passage of the Song of Songs, "Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth"⁴: every motion is from God, but the use he makes of it is from man. Likewise an authority says: all things, insofar as they exist, are good. Augustine says: every property, every structure, is from God.

And note that the things contained from that place, "And in one Lord," up to this place, are enclosed under one article according to the aforesaid rule, because all these things so cohere with one another that one is understood in the other. For they all pertain to one condition of the Son, that is, to his eternal generation.

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.

The things said above pertain to Christ's divine nature and his eternal generation. What follows pertains to his human nature. In the following articles are explained those seven seals or signatures of which John speaks in the Apocalypse,¹ which no one could loose except the lion of the tribe of Judah, by which are understood the seven states of Christ, namely his conception of the Holy Spirit, his birth of the Virgin, his voluntary passion, his resurrection, his ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit, and his second coming. This article was composed by Andrew. He says therefore:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Behold the first seal. Note that he is said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit not because he took the seed of his birth from the operation of the Holy Spirit, but because, through the love and operation of the Holy Spirit, human nature furnished the substance for his divine birth, that is, by the authority of the Holy Spirit a certain portion of flesh was taken from the rest of the Virgin's flesh and formed into the body of Christ. And thus it denotes an efficient cause, not a material one, as certain heretics wrongly understood, who taught that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the seed of the Holy Spirit.

To remove the suspicion of this error, in that hymn "Quem terra pontus ethera" ("Whom earth, sea, and sky silently venerate"), in certain churches there is that verse: therefore the ages marvel that an angel brings the seeds. The sense, then, is: who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, that is, by the authority of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is not to be said that he is the son of the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says, because he is not of the Holy Spirit through a material cause but through an efficient one. It follows:

Born of the Virgin Mary.

This preposition "of" here denotes a material cause, because Christ was born of the Virgin not only locally but materially, because he took the nature of flesh not merely in the Virgin but from the Virgin. This is said against the Manichean, who taught that Christ took on a body from celestial matter and thus descended into the womb of the Virgin, and so the Virgin was only a receptacle for Christ, not his mother. Hence the disciples of Mani refuse to curse a sack, calling the Virgin's womb a sack. To this article is reduced the third article of the Nicene Creed, where it is said:

Who for us men

For Christ took on flesh, endured his passion, and rose again not for his own sake but for ours. For he was not incarnate because he was in need, but so that he might fulfill our need. Hence it is read in Isaiah: "A little child is born to us, a son is given to us."² This is said against Origen, who asserted that Christ was incarnate not for the sake of redeeming men but for the sake of redeeming demons. And to show for what purpose he came, it follows:

And for our salvation

And so that it might be clear that it was for our salvation, it follows:

He descended from the heavens.

By his incarnation he is said to have descended from the heavens. For whereas before he was in a certain way in this heaven in that he was invisible (for celestial things are not open to our sight), in this he descended from heaven, because he who was invisible according to his divinity appeared visible according to his humanity. Also in this, that he united the human nature to the divine. Third, so that he who was unknown might become known to the faithful.

And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary.

And this is what was said above: "Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary." And because there were those who said Christ was a phantom man, it follows:

And was made man.

These things too pertain to one article, because they pertain to Christ's temporal birth. And thus the articles are so connected that one is understood in the other.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

This article was composed by James the son of Alphaeus, who is also called the brother of the Lord, and who was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

Suffered,

he is said, according to his human nature, because he suffered in his human nature in such a way that he did not suffer in his divine nature. For just as a ray of the sun is poured around a tree, yet when the tree is wounded the ray remains unhurt, so the Son of God, indeed still more subtly, suffered in the flesh, while his divinity remained unhurt.

This is said against the heresy of certain people who said that Christ did not truly suffer, because, since his human nature was united to the divine, just as he could not sin in his human nature, so too he could not suffer.

Hilary seems to have held this heresy, who in the book On the Trinity says that Christ felt no pain in his passion. Some, however, refer Hilary's words to the effect of punishment, that is, to sin, affirming that Hilary said this not because Christ did not feel pain, but because he had in himself no cause of punishment, that is, no fault.

Claudius, however, in the book On the Soul, says that Hilary erred in two things, speaking thus: Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, although among the noblest kinds of his disputations, is believed to have erred in two things, namely in this, that he asserted that Christ felt no pain on the cross, and that the soul is transmitted by propagation; although in life he endured the pen of censure, nevertheless after death he does not suffer any diminishment of his merits, because in death he was led to repentance. It follows:

Under Pontius Pilate,

because, when Pilate was procurator of Judea, under the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Christ suffered. He was called Pontius either from the island of Pontus or from the region of Pontus.

Crucified.

This is said against the heresy of the Nicolaitans, who assert that Christ, born of the Virgin, did not truly die, but that another man was substituted in his place on the cross. It follows:

Died.

This is said against the Jews, who say that if he was Christ, he could not die. But in the Gospel it is said that, crying out with a loud voice, he gave up his spirit,¹ saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."²

And was buried,

because in the same Gospel it is read that he was laid by Nicodemus and Joseph in a tomb which Joseph had hewn out of rock, where no one had yet been laid.³ To this article is reduced that article of the Nicene Creed, "Crucified also for us." For truly his crucifixion benefited us especially.

He descended into hell, on the third day rose again from the dead.

This whole passage, according to some, pertains to one article, and it was composed by John the Evangelist. But it is asked how these things pertain to one article, since they do not cohere with each other, nor do they pertain to one condition of Christ's human nature but to two. To this we say that they are said to pertain to one article for this reason: that what follows, namely "on the third day he rose again from the dead," is joined on in order to explain what was said, "he descended into hell," namely lest anyone believe that Christ so descended into hell that a return to the world above was not open to him.

Since, then, what follows is set down to weaken an error that could arise from what was said, "he descended into hell," it is said to pertain to this; or rather, what was said pertains to the preceding article, where it was said "was crucified, died, and was buried." For all these pertain to the death of Christ and thus to one condition of Christ's human nature.

And in the Nicene Creed, "he descended into hell" is passed over in silence.

He descended into hell,

however, according to the soul, which was united to the person. For from the time the Son assumed a body and a soul, he did not lay aside body and soul. For just as he is said to have been in the tomb by reason of the body, so he descended into hell by reason of the soul, and consequently:

Rose again from the dead,

that is, from the state of the dead, that is, from death, or from the dead, that is, from the number of the dead, because he himself was free among the dead.¹

On the third day,

because he rose in the morning of the third day. Hence it is said, "Rising in the morning of the first day of the week, the Son of God." And in the psalm, "I will rise at dawn."² And elsewhere, "Weeping shall tarry in the evening, and in the morning, gladness."³ And this is what is said in the Nicene Creed, "And he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures." Some interpret this wrongly, expounding Christ's resurrection thus: "according to the scriptures," that is, according to what was prophesied in the scriptures of the Old Testament, as it is said in the psalm, "I have slept," etc.⁴

He ascended into the heavens, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty.

These pertain to one article according to the aforesaid rule. This article was composed by the apostle Thomas. And note that Christ is said to have ascended into heaven for a twofold reason: both because, from the presence of his disciples, borne by clouds, he ascended into the empyrean heaven, where his human nature is with the angels and all the saints; and because through his resurrection and ascension it became known that he is equal to the Father.

And thus, because he was from eternity consubstantial with the Father, he is said to have ascended into heaven to the Father when it first became known to all that he is consubstantial with the Father, according to how that verse is expounded: "For which cause he was given a name that is above every name."¹ The name, which is the divine nature, is said to make the Son equal to the Father. Therefore this name was given to Christ, and this is "to sit at the right hand of God the Father," that is, to be equal and consubstantial with God the Father. For close companions and greater ones customarily sit at the right hand of princes.

Hence it is said metaphorically that the Son sits at the right hand of God the Father, that is, he is said to sit at the right hand of the Father, that is, to enjoy the greater goods of the Father. For the Father could not confer better goods on the Son according to his human nature than he did confer. In accordance with which that verse is expounded: "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand."²

This is the same as what is said in the Nicene Creed, "He ascended into heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father." Here it is asked why in the apostolic Creed it says "of God the Father almighty," while here it says only "of the Father." To this we say that it is passed over in silence in the Nicene Creed because this is sufficiently understood from what was said before.

From there he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

This article was devised and composed by Philip. This adverb "from there" is either local or temporal. It is local thus: "from there," that is, from the empyrean heaven, because just as he ascended into heaven borne by clouds, so he will come to judgment. It is temporal thus: "from there," that is, afterward.

Hence in the Nicene Creed it is said, "And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead." It attributes judgment to the Son because in his human nature he will judge not only by authority but also by the pronouncement of the sentence, saying, "Come, you blessed of my Father."¹ "The living," that is, those who will then be found alive, and "the dead," that is, those who will then be dead. Or "the living," namely by spiritual life, that is, those to be saved, and "the dead," by spiritual death, that is, those to be condemned.

And this is what is said in the Nicene Creed, "And he shall come again," etc. By this his second coming is suggested. For the first was in humility, the second will be in majesty. The first was so that Christ might be judged by the world; the second will be so that the world may be judged by Christ.

I believe in the Holy Spirit.

It seems superfluous, given what we said above, that the seven seals, that is, the seven conditions pertaining to Christ's human nature, are contained in this Creed. For no mention is made of the sending of the Holy Spirit. Hence some say that one of these was called the descent into hell. They also ask whether believing in the Father is one article, believing in the Son another, and believing in the Holy Spirit another. For according to the aforesaid rule they ought to pertain to one article, because they cohere with one another in such a way that one is understood in the other.

To this we say that they are distinct articles because we are moved to believe in the Father by one motion, in the Son by another; by one act of understanding I comprehend the Father to be the Father, by another the Son to be the Son, because just as there are diverse meanings of these names and diverse notions from which they are given, so there are diverse acts of understanding and diverse movements of faith for comprehending them, because, as Hilary says, just as words are successive in the one uttering them, so the movements of understanding are successive in the one understanding.

To this is reduced what is contained in the Nicene Creed, where it is said, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord."

Holy

is said against the demon, in whom the church of the malicious rather believes than in the Holy Spirit. And it is said so that the same power of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son might be noted. This is said against the heretics who said that the Father is supreme power, the Son the least, and the Holy Spirit none at all. It follows:

And the giver of life.

For he himself is the gift of the Father and the Son, in whom grace is given to the just, in this present life the grace of life, in the future the life of glory.

Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

For by one spiration they breathe forth the Holy Spirit, and he proceeds equally from the Son as from the Father. This is said against those heretics who denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This, however, can be proved by many testimonies. The Greeks, however, say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. They say this because Truth itself in the Gospel says, "The Spirit who proceeds from the Father,"¹ and does not add "and from the Son." And because in the first composition of the Creed only the Father is commemorated, and not the Son, in these words, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is to be co-adored and co-glorified," at the end of which Creed it is added, "Whoever shall teach or preach otherwise, let him be excommunicated." Therefore they call us anathematized because we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, which is not contained there.

We, however, determining this matter, say that Truth does not deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but says he proceeds from the Father in order to suggest that the authority of proceeding rests with the Father, because the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, he has this from the Father. When it is said, "whoever shall teach otherwise," "otherwise" is taken as meaning something opposed, not merely something different, as if it were said: whoever shall teach the opposite.

But when "and the Son" is said, this states not something opposed or contrary, but something added for the sake of explanation. Thus the Greeks appear opposed to the religion of the Christian faith. We can, however, call them different, not opposed. For they say that "the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Son" is something different from "proceeds from the Son." For although they differ from us in wording, they do not differ in meaning. It follows:

Who together with the Father and the Son is at once adored and glorified,

that is, he is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

Who spoke through the prophets.

This is said against the heretic Montanus, who said that the prophets spoke with a phantom spirit, in the manner of the possessed, whereas it was actually the Holy Spirit who spoke through them. For sometimes he spoke through someone and not in that person, as through Balaam and Caiaphas, because the Holy Spirit was in neither of them. Caiaphas and Balaam spoke from the Holy Spirit but not in the Holy Spirit. Sometimes he speaks in someone and not through someone, as when he speaks in some holy person by internal inspiration, yet this is not outwardly uttered in words. Hence David says, "I will hear what he shall speak."²

The holy catholic Church, the communion of saints.

This pertains to the aforesaid article. But it is asked how it pertains to the aforesaid article, since it does not cohere with the preceding things, nor does it pertain to the condition of the Holy Spirit along with any of the preceding things. To this we say that, since the Holy Spirit is the gift of the Father and the Son, in this gift the Church has its being holy and catholic. Since, then, it pertains to the Holy Spirit that the Church is holy and catholic, all these things pertain to one article, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church," or because this was composed by one apostle, namely James the Greater, it is reckoned as one article.

The sense, then, is: I believe the Church to be holy and catholic, not "in" it. For we are bound to believe only in God, that is, to tend toward him by faith and charity as toward our supreme end. But we are bound to believe that the Church is holy and catholic, and to believe her words, that is, the Church's, and that what she preaches is true, but not to believe "in" the Church. For this would be to offer divine worship to a creature, and thus we would be idolaters.

And note that "church" is one thing and "synagogue" another. For "church" is interpreted as a "calling together," and thus it belongs to rational beings. "Synagogue" means a "gathering together," and this can belong to inanimate things as well. Hence the calling together of the faithful in the New Testament is called "church" because they are more rational; but the gathering of the Jews, who are as it were stone-like and irrational, is called a "synagogue."

We are bound, then, to believe that the Church is holy, which from the first Abel has never ceased to exist among certain just persons. Hence too, when Elijah believed himself to be the only just man left, it was told him by the Lord that there were still seven thousand men who had not bent their knees before Baal.¹

We are also bound to believe that the Church is threefold, namely the Church triumphant, which already reigns in the heavens and consists of holy souls; the Church militant, which still journeys as a pilgrim on earth; and the Church awaiting, which still waits in purgatory. It follows:

The holy Church.

The Church is called holy for a threefold reason: because from eternity she was sanctioned and ordained in God's predestination; because she is preserved in unchanging sacraments (for the sacraments of the Old Testament were changeable and merely co-signifying, not truly signifying, whereas the sacraments of the New Testament are both unchanging and sanctifying); and third, because she is founded on faith and charity and the other virtues.

Catholic,

that is, universal. The Church is called universal because she is gathered from every people, every condition, every sex, every age. This is said against the synagogue, which was gathered from only one people.

She is also called universal on account of the universal precepts given to her. But to the synagogue particular precepts were given: particular in time, because changeable; particular in people, because for one people only; particular in condition, because for the free; particular in sex, as circumcision, for males only.

But the precepts given to the Church are universal, because they are unchanging and are set forth for every people, every sex, every condition. And this is what is added in the Nicene Creed, "And one holy catholic." The Church is said to be one because she is not divided by schisms, because there is one God, one faith, one baptism.² Hence, on the contrary, it is said of the assemblies of heretics, "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation."³ She is also called one against the heretics, who say that among themselves there are various churches. Holy and catholic as has been explained.

Apostolic.

The Church is called apostolic because she is spread throughout the world. Hence it is said as it were from "sent forth over." Or apostolic, that is, founded by the apostles, or retaining the apostles' precepts. This article was composed by blessed James the Greater, brother of John the Evangelist.

The communion of saints.

The communion of saints is the spiritual union of the saints in the Church. We are bound to believe this because the faithful are spiritually united in the Church by faith and charity. Hence it is said, "They had one heart and one soul"⁴: one heart for believing the same thing, one soul for willing the same thing.

For there are three things that make for the communion or union of the faithful, namely faith, charity, obedience. These are the bonds by which the faithful are united in the Church, of which it is said, "A threefold cord is not easily broken."⁵ From the breaking of faith arises heresy. From the breaking of charity arises schism. From the breaking of obedience arises contumacy. Hence some are heretics, or schismatics, or contumacious excommunicates, that is, they are placed outside the aforesaid union of the saints.

We can also believe in a communion of saints that is the spiritual blessedness passing from the Church militant to the Church triumphant. For the merits of the saints who are already in the homeland intercede for those who are still on the way. We are bound to believe this communion as well. Hence someone departing this life in faith and charity, if his good merits do not seem to balance evenly against his evil deeds, can plead on his own behalf the grill of Lawrence, the rack of Vincent, and the little drop of Christ's blood.

But it is asked why no mention is made of this communion in the Nicene Creed. To this we answer that it is passed over there in silence because it is sufficiently understood through what is said there, "the catholic Church."

Likewise it is asked why no mention is made there of that article by which we believe in the transubstantiation of the bread into the true body of Christ. We answer that in the early Church this was believed so firmly that it was doubtful to no one, since Christ himself had affirmed it, saying, "This is my body." Or we can say that by "communion" is understood not only the spiritual union of the faithful but also the communion of the Lord's body and blood, which we are bound to believe, namely that the faithful ought to receive communion in the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. This the aforesaid article implies. This article, they say, was composed by Matthew. It was omitted in the Nicene Creed because it was sufficiently set forth in the apostolic Creed.

The remission of sins.

First we ought to believe that sins are remitted in many ways: through baptism, through penance, through the other sacraments of the Church, namely through the oil of confirmation and holy anointing, and others in which sins are remitted. This is said against certain heretics who say that men cannot rise again after a fall, relying on that authority, "If the virgin of Israel has fallen, who shall help her to rise?"¹

This is what is said in the Nicene Creed, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins." It is elegantly said "I confess," because confession of the heart avails nothing without confession of the mouth, according to that saying, "With the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."² In baptism too, confession of the mouth is specifically required, where also the child to be baptized is asked, "Do you wish to be baptized?" and the godfather answers, "I do." Consequently it says "one." For there were those who said there were as many baptisms as there were baptizers. Against this it says "one," because whoever waters, whoever plants, it is God alone who gives the increase.

"Baptism" is interpreted as "anointing," because in baptism the body is touched outwardly in such a way that the spirit is washed inwardly, according to those two verses: every fault is washed in this sacred washing; the water washes outwardly, the spirit inwardly.

For the remission of sins.

For we are bound to believe this, that in baptism sins are remitted. And by what is said of the one sacrament, understanding is given of the rest, namely the sacrament of confirmation, of holy anointing, and the others by which sins are remitted. This article was composed by Simon the Canaanite, brother of James the Less and of Jude.

The resurrection of the flesh.

We are also bound to believe this, that we will rise again in our own flesh. This is said against the Sadducees, who said that the soul ends with the body. Hence Job says, "Whom I myself shall see," etc.¹ It is to be believed that a person will rise again in that same flesh which he had in his life, whether unto punishment or unto glory, yet only in that flesh which belongs to the truth of human nature. By "the truth of human nature" we mean that true nature which Adam had before he sinned, which was transmitted by way of seed into others, namely his descendants. Not that everything in the body belongs to the truth of human nature; rather, the remainder is so mixed with the true nature that it is not possible to distinguish between the true part and that other part.

Hence too, after sin, a certain blemish, through the kindling of concupiscence, was mixed into the truth of human nature, which was transmitted, together with the truth of human nature itself, into his descendants. Man, then, will rise again with the truth of human nature. But if this is so, it seems that Adam alone will rise entire, because something of the truth of his nature was transmitted into his descendants.

That, then, will rise again in Adam which is not in his descendants, and so Adam alone will rise entirely whole, the others only in part. By the same reasoning Eve will rise again with the whole truth of human nature that is required for the condition of the first human being. But in truth, because human nature can subsist fully without that which was transmitted into his descendants, and without the rib, Adam will be able to rise fully and perfectly without these things.

That, then, which is in the hair and in the other members that belongs to the truth of human nature will rise again; but what belongs to mere growth will not. And this is what is said in the Nicene Creed, "I await the resurrection of the dead." This article was composed by Jude Thaddeus.