Summa de Ecclesia

D. Io. de Turrecremata

Cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Sixtus,

On the decree of the Union of the Greeks,

celebrated in the most holy ecumenical Council of Florence,

promulgated by Pope Eugene IIII.,

NOW FIRST BROUGHT TO LIGHT.

Lest the oracles, disturbed, fly away on the swift winds

Now the seer sounds forth from a more convenient leaf

SIBYL

With the privilege of the supreme Pontiff Pius IIII. and of the Illustrious Senate of Venice, for XV years.

POPE PIUS IIII.

By motu proprio, etc. Whereas, as we have been informed, our beloved son Michael Tramezzino, bookseller of Venice, has recently caused it to be set before us that, for the common benefit of all studies, he intends at his own expense to have printed various works, Latin and Italian, both the Italian works translated from the Latin, French and Spanish idioms, and the works written in Italian which have not been translated and have not hitherto been printed; and he fears that such works may afterwards be printed by others without his licence, which would tend to his very great prejudice. We therefore, wishing to provide for his indemnity, by the same motu proprio and with certain knowledge, grant and indulge to the same Michael that for ten years after the printing of the same works, or of any one of them, no one may print, without his licence, the aforesaid works which have not hitherto been printed and which have been examined and approved by the inquisitors of that place, or, if in the city, by the Master of the Sacred Palace, and which are to be printed by him; nor may anyone sell them, or have them for sale or offer them, or hold them for sale in their shops or otherwise, other than the works printed or to be printed by the said Michael. We forbid all and each of the faithful of Christ, both those existing in Italy and those outside Italy, especially booksellers and printers of books, under the sentence of excommunication latae sententiae. In the lands of the Holy Roman Church, subject to it mediately or immediately, there is also to be incurred, without any other declaration and ipso facto, as often as an act is committed against this, a penalty of five hundred gold ducats to be applied to the Apostolic Camera, and further the penalty of the loss of the books: so that within a decade, to be reckoned from the printing of the said works or of any one of them respectively, no one may dare to print, during the said decade, the said works, both Latin and Italian, not hitherto printed and to be printed by the said Michael, without the express licence of the same Michael; or to sell them, or those printed or to be printed by others than the said Michael, or to have them for sale or to offer them, or to have them as above. We command all our venerable brothers, the Archbishops and their Vicars-General in spiritual matters, and in the temporal state of the Holy Roman Church, also legates and vice-legates of the Apostolic See, and the governors of that state, that whenever they, or any one of them, shall have been asked on behalf of the said Michael, they assist the same Michael with the protection of effective defence; and that the foregoing be carried out, at every request of the said Michael, against the disobedient and the rebellious, by ecclesiastical censures, even repeatedly increased, and by the other remedies of law, by apostolic authority, the aid of the secular arm being invoked for this too, if need be. Moreover, since it would be exceedingly difficult to bring the present motu proprio to every place, we will, and by apostolic authority decree, that transcripts or copies of it, even when printed in the works themselves, have everywhere full and wholly the same faith, both in court and out of court, as the present original would have. And with absolution from censures for the purpose of these presents, and that the signature alone suffice. And lest anyone be able to feign ignorance of the foregoing, that the present motu proprio be affixed in the open space of the Campo de' Fiori and on the doors of the Apostolic Chancery of this kindly city, and be published there by affixing, and that, so affixed and printed for the time in the works themselves, it be deemed brought to the notice of all whom it concerns, as if it had been personally intimated to them: we expressly will and command this, and decree that whatever happens otherwise is to be deemed null and void, all the foregoing apostolic constitutions and ordinances, and all else to the contrary, notwithstanding whatsoever.

It is approved by motu proprio. I.

M D LX. On 3 February, in Rogatis.

That by authority of this Council it is granted to our faithful Francesco and Michele Tramezzini, that no other person, other than they or whoever shall derive title from them, may for the space of the next fifteen years print, in this city or in any other city or place of our Dominion, nor sell, in those places, what has been printed elsewhere: the Summa de Ecclesia of D. Ioannis de Turrecremata, Cardinal, and the apparatus of the same on the decree of the union of the Greeks at Florence, of Pope Eugene IV of happy memory; under penalty for the offenders of losing all the works printed by them, and of two hundred ducats, to be divided: one third to the magistrate who carries out the execution, one third to the Arsenal, and the other third to the Hospital of the Pietà; they, however, being obliged to observe what is provided by our laws on matters of printing.

Aloysius Garzonius Duc. Not.

VITELLOTIUS SANCTAE

Mariae in porticu, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Vitellius, to the most distinguished Cardinal Charles Borromeo.

It cannot be said how greatly heretical men have always attacked the truth of the Catholic faith and the principate of the Apostolic See. I pass over those of old, for they are almost countless; not many years ago, the Greeks themselves, though they often tried to diminish and depress the authority of the Roman See, often confessed their error when refuted, and returned to the unity of the Church (for, as is recorded, they came together with the Roman Church thirty times). Nevertheless the adversary of human salvation, who goes about seeking whom he may devour, who by applying his manifold and ancient cunning endeavours to ensnare men, so that, with the sense of truth corrupted, they fall from the simplicity that is in Christ, sowing tares over them, an old heresy renewed was cut away by the sickle of the Holy Spirit, that is, by the decree of the Roman Pontiff and of the ecumenical Council of Florence. How truly Catholic and holy that decree was promulgated, Bessarion the Cardinal among the Greeks, and among the Latins John, Cardinal of the title of Saint Sixtus of Turrecremata, have expounded most excellently in the apparatus which he wrote upon that decree, in which whatever may be said against it by adversaries he has refuted with the truest arguments. But it was a source of annoyance to the studious of the Church that a work so useful was not common to many, since, not yet printed, it was kept in certain libraries and read by very few. Therefore, since I had observed how much benefit could be brought to readers from knowing it, I took care that such an apparatus be printed, so that what the author himself proposed to himself when he composed it, namely that it benefit many, might be accomplished by this means. For it seemed absurd that we should spare expense, when those very men who wrote these things spared no vigils and no labours. Indeed it would be desirable for us to be such men as could produce similar works; but if we cannot, the next best thing is that we see to the publication of what has been carefully and learnedly elaborated by others, especially by the men of our own College. Moreover, that I should send this apparatus to you rather than to anyone else, I was moved chiefly by these reasons: that you are yourself skilled in human and divine law, and take the greatest delight in reading this author; and the more closely you are bound to him, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and governs the Catholic Church, the more that book seems to pertain to you, in which the majesty of the Church itself is defended. Add that you so conduct yourself that we may recognise in you a nephew worthy of Pius the Fourth, Supreme Pontiff. Besides there is my not ordinary goodwill and regard towards you, of which I desire some token to stand out in monuments of this kind.

HERE BEGINS THE APPARATUS OF THE LORD CARDINAL OF SAINT SIXTUS ON THE DECREE OF THE UNION OF THE GREEKS AT FLORENCE.

To the most holy and most blessed and most clement Father, Lord Eugene, by divine providence Pope IIII., his servant of holiness, John, presbyter Cardinal¹ of the Holy Roman Church, titular of Saint Sixtus, commonly called of Turrecremata, commends himself with humble recommendation to the kissing of the blessed feet. And although those things which your blessedness has accomplished concerning the reduction of the Greeks and the union of the Eastern Church shine with the greatest splendour throughout the whole world, certain most abandoned men nevertheless strive to obscure them with the clouds of detraction. For some, not bearing the splendour of your glory, raging with the snares of envy because they have not deserved to attain it, nor thought themselves worthy to imitate this most excellent office, granted to you from above by divine liberality and most celebrated for every future age, hold it of little account, despise it and scorn it; and so it comes about, as Saint Gregory bears witness in the Moralia,² that while the elect make progress, the reprobate are stirred up to the frenzy of rage, and they persecute the good things as they arise, which they are unwilling to imitate.

Others, however, held by the mist of ignorance or the shadows of error, murmur against the things brought forth and defined by the wisdom of your Blessedness and contained in the decree itself of the holy union, objecting some things that are less firm and others less right, not noticing that this rashness of theirs is clearly one kind of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, for whose sake the canons were laid down, as in ch. violatores, XXV. q. I. But, most blessed Father, although I hold most firmly that the wicked detraction of these pestilent men is an approval of the works of your Blessedness and an exposure of the shame of the detractors, we nowhere find that God praised Moses so much, bearing the figure of your principate, as when he was detracted by Aaron and Mary. Hence the Lord says of Moses: "He is most faithful in all my house; for I speak with him mouth to mouth, plainly and not through riddles, and he beholds the figure of God." See what punishments, says Origen in the Gloss on Num. XII, the detractors have brought upon themselves, what praise to him, what shame to themselves, splendour to him, leprosy to them, glory to him. Nevertheless, lest among the less learned, through the crafty interpretation of these wicked men, what has been confirmed by supreme authority become open to doubt, or in any way be weakened by the snares of their envy and malice, I, moved by zeal for the truth of the faith and for the honour of your Blessedness, have drawn up a certain apparatus on the decree of the holy union of the Greeks, drawn from your authority and wisdom, for the glory of your works. In it, clothing with gold, that is, with imperishable and incorrupt testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the holy Fathers, the pillars of the faith, that is the definitions which you, as a wise architect, most wisely built with this holy universal and ecumenical Council of Florence cooperating, to fix the minds of the faithful upon the rock of faith and to break down errors in the house of the Lord, I have shown clearer than light, that nothing has been laid down in that decree by your Blessedness which has not been sanctioned by lawful authority, confirmed by truth, decided by the greatest wisdom, and concluded with the integrity of unblemished praise. In the explanation of that decree, since I fear, aware of the smallness of my talent, to have spoken of some things with too little learning, or with too little wisdom, I judged it fitting to offer all my words to the correction of your Holiness, from whose breast that most holy canon emanated. And it has been granted specially to the authority of that See to interpret and explain doubts which arise concerning the definitions and constitutions of universal synods; for Blessed Gregory says in ch. non licuit, dist. XVII: "as often as doubt arises for some concerning a universal synod, they should come together to the Apostolic See to receive an explanation of what they do not understand."

THE TEXT FOLLOWS.

Eugene, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, for the perpetual memory of the matter.

Eugene: this decree is divided, by its first division, into three parts: the proem, the narration, and the conclusion; the second begins at CONVENIENTES, the third at ET EX HIS OMNIBUS. The first is divided into four: first, at AD PERPETVAM REI MEMORIAM, it states that all the things written below were done and concluded with the consent of the Lord Emperor of the Greeks, and of the deputies of the venerable Patriarchs, and of the others representing the Eastern Church. Second, it invites heaven and earth to common joy, at LAETENTUR COELI. Third, it assigns the cause of joy, at SUBLATUS EST PARIES. Fourth, the greatness of the benefit having been commended, it offers thanks to almighty God, giver of so great a gift, at TIBI LAUS.

Eugene the Fourth, so called by this distinguished name in the order of the supreme Pontiffs, is called Eugenius as if begotten for the good: from eu, which in Greek is "good" in Latin, and genitus. ³ Eugenius is also said to mean "of good kind", that is, noble, as Hugutio has it; Eugenis is noble ⁴, and with a u added, Eugenius, is called most noble. ⁵ For the Greeks, with the middle syllable short, say Eugenes, which we render as ingenuous or noble, that is, of good kind. Also the god of nature, whence Genius, of the masculine gender, is called the god who presides over marriages, or the god of nature; and it is derived from gigno, gignis, as if having power over all things to be begotten. The explanations of this name are certainly consonant with our lord the Pope, who is rightly called Eugenius both in fact and in name. For he is noble by birth, but nobler in virtues and in mind, a nobility than which none is more excellent, Jerome saying: ⁶ "The highest nobility before God is to be illustrious in virtues." He was begotten for the good of the whole Christian commonwealth. This is shown most clearly by the fact that, through his zeal, promotion, industry, wisdom, talent, labours and expense, the union of the Greeks was procured and concluded, and the reduction of the Armenians, which is known to constitute a very large part of the world. What a great good this union is for the Christian commonwealth no human tongue could ever tell: through it the salvation of innumerable souls has been advanced, and the Christian religion increased. But it should be known that our present lord was not called Eugene from baptism (for he took that name together with the honour of the supreme pontificate), but Gabriel, which is interpreted as the strength of the Lord. He was rightly called the strength of the Lord, because he was not broken by the onslaughts of so many adversities; for nothing can prevail against one to whom divine power gives help, says Cassiodorus, so that he may say that saying of Isaiah XII: "The Lord is my strength and my praise." ⁷ But it is customarily asked why the name is changed upon the assumption of the Roman Pontiff. Some answer that the Roman Church received this custom from Christ, who is said to have changed Peter's name at his promotion; whence Christ says in John I: "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." But this reason does not please Albert the Great, in his postil on John, because for a long time after Peter it is read that no one elected Pope had his name changed. It is therefore said that the cause, and a reasonable one, from which this custom of changing the name of one elected to the supreme Pontiff took its origin, was that one who, as Albert the Great says on John in chapter I, "You have an ugly name, since he was called pig's snout", was elected Pope. But since it was not fitting that one elected Roman Pontiff be called by so base a name, nor just that someone otherwise worthy be repelled from the pontificate on account of an ugly name, his name was changed; and he was called Sergius the Second, as the Chronicles report. And from that Roman Pontiff, who is counted as the hundred and seventh from blessed Peter, this praiseworthy custom grew up in the holy Church, that the name of one elected supreme Pontiff is changed. ⁸ Secondly, the figure of this notable custom also preceded in the Old Testament, Gen. XVII, where the Lord, promoting Abraham, changes his name, saying: "I am, and my covenant shall be with you; you shall be the father of many nations; nor shall your name any longer be called Abram, but you shall be called Abraham, because I have made you father of many nations." Whence Bede, on Luke, holds that a judgement of singular merit is given whenever a name is imposed on a man, or changed, at God's command; so Abraham, because he was to be the father of many nations, was called Abraham. ⁹ Thirdly, this custom of the holy Church had an exemplary reason in the deed of Christ concerning Peter, the first pontiff of the Roman Church. For Christ imposed a new name on Peter, whom he was about to make supreme pontiff of the Church; whence he says in John I: "You are Simon son of Johanna; you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." On this word blessed Augustine says, and it is placed in the continuous gloss, that it is not great that God said whose son Peter was, for he knew the names of all his saints, whom he predestined before the constitution of the world; but that is great, that he changed his name and made Peter of Simon, and Peter from petra. And below: "But God made you attentive; for if he had been called Peter beforehand, you would not so see the mystery of the Rock, and would think that he was so named by chance, not by the providence of God." Therefore God wished him to be called by another name, so that the vitality of the sacrament might be commended by the very change of name; not without reason, then, if the holy Church, imitating the teaching of Christ, changes the names of the successors of Peter in the apostolic principate, commending so great a sacrament. ¹⁰ Fourthly, the change of this name in the Roman pontiff has a manifold mystical meaning. First, in the very change of the name which the parents gave, a change from carnal affection to the divine is mystically designated in the supreme pontiff; for Eli the high priest is reproved for his disordered carnal affection towards his sons, when the Lord says to him: "You have honoured your sons more than me." 1 Reg. II. Whence the interlinear gloss on Gen. XVII, "but you shall be called Abraham", says that when the affection is changed, the name is changed too; and Bede, on that passage of John, "you shall be called Cephas", says: "Christ looked upon Peter not only with outward eyes, but with the eternal gaze of divinity; he saw the simplicity of his heart and the loftiness of his mind, by whose merit he was to be preferred to the whole Church." ¹¹

Secondly, the imposition of a new name upon the Roman pontiff mystically designates the newness of holy life; wherefore in ch. Non vos, dist. XL: "For who would doubt that he is holy, whom the summit of so great a dignity lifts up?" Whence the Master of the Sentences, at the beginning above the Epistle to the Romans, following the opinion of Augustine on the change of name in the Apostle, who was first called Saul and afterwards named Paul, says thus: "Furthermore, it is said that he did this after the custom of the holy Apostles, who, advancing in virtues, were called by a changed name, so that they might be new even in name, as Cephas, and sons of thunder, and the like; whence the holy Church has now made it a custom to change the names of those whom she raises to the chair of Saint Peter"; thus the Master. ¹²

Bishop: the word episcopus is, as blessed Isidore says in Book VII of the Etymologies, and as the Master cites it in IV Sentences, dist. XXIV, and Gratian in ch. Cleros, dist. XXI, derived from the fact that he who is made bishop superintends the care, namely bearing the charge of those under him; for scopia in Greek is to "intend" in Latin. ^{13 14} For our lord rightly names himself bishop absolutely and without qualification, because he holds an absolute and unqualified immediate power, not only in one diocese but in the whole world, as will be shown with the clearest light below, around the definition of the article on the primacy of the Roman pontiff. But this seems to be contrary, because many supreme Roman pontiffs are said to have called themselves bishops of the city of Rome alone, as is clear of Pelagius, in ch. Quamvis, dist. XXI. Secondly, the things said above seem contrary: see ch. Nullus, dist. XCIX, where Pope Pelagius forbids any of the patriarchs to use the term of universality, and in the following chapters blessed Gregory forbids himself to be called universal Pope. ¹⁵ To the first of these it is answered that two things are to be considered in the Roman pontiff, in which he succeeds the Apostle Peter: namely the universality of jurisdiction, which Peter received from Christ, not in one place or one nation only, but universally throughout the whole world, according to that of Matt. XVI: "To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind upon earth", and so on. In this respect the Pope is, and is called, bishop or pontiff of the universal Church, in ch. In nomine Domini, dist. XXI. And therefore Pope Nicholas III says in ch. Per principalem, C. I, q. I: "By the sovereign right hand of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we have power and right not only over monks but over whatever clerics, of any diocese, to summon to us when necessity requires, and to invite them as ecclesiastical needs require." ¹⁶ The second thing to be considered in the Pope is administration or government; and from consideration of this part, as regards immediate personal administration, the Pope is not called bishop of any church whatever, but of the city of Rome alone, in which he appoints a vicar. For here the supreme pontiff ought to rule and administer the Church, so that the prelacies of other pontiffs do not appear to be excluded from the Church; for thus God works, whose place the Roman pontiff fills in governing the Church, and in this he imitates providence. Who, although he is all-powerful and of infinite virtue, nevertheless does not govern and rule all things immediately, but some immediately and some through a creature serving him and ordered by most perfect laws, as Augustine says in book LXXXIII of the Questions; in which, as Saint Thomas says in the Quaestiones de potentia, q. V, art. VIII, the greatness of divine providence and goodness is more manifestly shown than if he governed all things immediately. ^{17 18} Since, therefore, the supreme Pontiff, besides that universal and undistinguished prelacy which he has over all the churches of Christ, has a special immediate administration of the Roman Church, he is sometimes read as called Roman Bishop; but this appellation, as is clear from what has been said, in no way stands in the way of the universality of authority and prelacy which he has over the universal Church.

To the chapter Nullus and the following chapter it is answered that the fact that the Pope forbids himself to be called universal is not because, as Saint Thomas says in his treatise against those who attack religion, he does not have immediate and full authority in every church, and consequently is not bishop of the universal Church, as is held in ch. In nomine Domini, dist. XXI. ¹⁹ Whence also in the Council of Chalcedon the most holy Pope Leo is read to have been called universal patriarch by the whole synod; ²⁰ and many holy pontiffs are read to have so named themselves, whence Saint Sixtus, in his second epistle, as is read in the Book of Pontiffs, writes thus: "Sixtus, bishop of the universal and Apostolic Church"; ²¹ likewise in the same way writes Saint Victor, in his decretal epistle concerning Easter and baptism, addressed to Theophilus of Alexandria. ²² Likewise our most holy Lord Pope Eugene, in the subscription which he made to the present decree, subscribing himself in the same way, says: "Eugene, bishop of the Catholic Church." ²³ But to this extent blessed Gregory forbids himself to be called universal Pope, because he is not set over any particular church as its proper and special rector; and this is what the chapter cited brings forward as its reason. But still the question arises why the Pope calls himself bishop, since in the Church there are higher dignities, such as patriarchates, archbishoprics, and so on. In answering this, the jurists say that the episcopate is an order and superior among all orders, according to ch. Cleros, dist. XXI, and that the Pope, wishing to be named from an order and not from a dignity, calls himself bishop. But since the theologians, to whose faculty we belong, and to whom in matters of the sacraments more credence seems due, state in IV Sentences, dist. XXIV, that properly speaking the episcopate is not an order distinct from the order of the priesthood, understanding by the name of order, in the chapter cited, Cleros, not an order properly taken which would impose a distinct character, but a certain office with respect to any sacred actions; otherwise it is answered and said, first, that when the Pope names himself bishop, the name bishop does not express a dignity distinct against the other eminent dignities listed above, but expresses the eminence of the Church's dignity, which by its community includes all the others. Hence the Pope is read to have been called not only bishop but patriarch, as in the above chapter Cleros, and in ch. Diffinimus, dist. XXII; he is also called archbishop, as in ch. Statuimus, dist. IV, and in ch. Incantum, dist. XXI. Secondly, it is answered that the Pope names himself bishop because no grade in the militant Church is higher than the episcopal dignity, as regards those things which belong to the episcopal order; all bishops are equal. For just as in the power of order the Apostles were endowed with honour equal to blessed Peter, as Cyprian says in the chapter "loquitur", XXIV. q. I, so all ²⁴ bishops are equal to the Roman pontiff in the power of the episcopal office; whence any hierarchical act which the Pope can perform in the administration of the sacraments, a bishop can perform, says Saint Thomas in IV Sentences, dist. XXIV. ²⁵ Thirdly, the Pope names himself bishop rather than patriarch or archbishop, because Christ, whose Vicar he is and who fills his place on earth, is named in Sacred Scripture by the name of bishop more than by the names of other dignities; for blessed Peter, speaking of Christ, says: "You have now turned to the shepherd and bishop of your souls", 1 Pet. II.

A SERVANT not indeed by condition, but by charity, because he serves the convenience of all the faithful of Christ, according to that of Matt. XX: "Whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your servant"; the gloss: charity, not condition, requires this; since the Apostle says in 1 Cor. IX: "Though I was free from all, I have made myself the servant of all, that I might gain more"; the gloss: he made me servant of all, that I might serve the conveniences of all. For a twofold mode of pre-eminence is distinguished by Saint Thomas: one ordered to rule, the other to domination; and the pre-eminence of master over servant, as Aristotle says in Ethics VI, is like that of a tyrant over a subject; and a tyrant differs from a King, as the same Philosopher teaches there in Book V, in that the King orders his pre-eminence to the good of the people over which he presides, but the tyrant orders his pre-eminence to his own advantage. But since the power and pre-eminence of the Roman pontiff is known to be instituted for the building up and the advantage of the whole Christian people, the Lord saying to blessed Peter, "Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep", in John's last chapter, the Roman pontiff rightly names himself servant of the servants of God, or names himself servant, which is a name of humility, out of excessive humility; according to that of Ecclesiasticus III: "How much greater, humble yourself in all things." And the first among the Roman pontiffs who is read to have written in his letters "servant of the servants" was blessed Gregory. ²⁶

SERVANTS OF GOD. The origin of the word "servants" is believed to be taken from this: that those who could be killed by the victors by right of war were preserved, and became slaves, so called from saving (servando), as Augustine says in City of God, Book XIX, ch. XV, and Isidore in Etymologies, Book IX, ch. XLIX. ²⁷ Such are all the faithful, who, freed from sin, which entered the world through one man, and death through sin (Rom. V), have been made servants of God (Rom. VI). Therefore to him we must rightly serve; Luke I: "Freed from the fear of our enemies, let us serve him."

TO THE PERPETUAL MEMORY OF THE MATTER: this is rightly to be commended to perpetual memory; our most holy lord ordains it, and the greatness of the benefits plainly requires it, which the Father of lights, from whom comes every best gift and every perfect gift (James I), has bestowed on his holy Church in the work of this holy union; benefits which, on account of their wonderfulness and preciousness, are to be commended to everlasting memory and pursued with immortal praises. "I will sing the mercies of the Lord for ever", says the Prophet, Ps. LXXXVII. Secondly, the same is demanded by the purity and sincerity of the truth declared in this decree; for since the truth of the Catholic faith has a perpetual and incorruptible firmness and necessity: firmness, indeed, for "the lip of truth shall be firm for ever", says Proverbs XII; and this, as the gloss says, is said because the Catholic faith will always remain. It also has necessity; for faith, as Chrysostom says, is the foundation of most holy religion; and the Apostle in Heb. IX says that "without faith it is impossible to please God." ²⁸ Therefore our most holy lord Eugene, arranging this declaration of faith as an unquenchable lamp for future ages upon the candlestick of the Church, says AD PERPETVAM REI MEMORIAM, so that that saying of Ecclesiasticus XXXIX may fit him: "He himself shall make manifest the discipline of his teaching, and there follows: many shall praise his wisdom, and it shall not be blotted out unto the age." Thirdly, the brightness of the holy studies and labours which our most holy lord and the most reverend and reverend fathers underwent in pursuing this holy union, requires the same; they rightly come to be recorded with praises in all future ages, according to that of 1 Macc. II: "Remember the works of the fathers, which they did in their generations, and you shall receive great glory." Whence, by the grace of this singular gift, that saying of Ecclesiasticus XXXIX befits our most holy lord: "His memory shall not depart, and his name shall be sought out", the interlinear gloss adding: of his holy works. "If by example, as the gloss says, from generation to generation the nations shall tell of his wisdom, and the Church shall proclaim his praise."

Consenting to the things written below: our most dear son John Palaeologus, the illustrious Emperor of the Romans, and the locum tenentes of our venerable brothers the Patriarchs, and the others representing the Eastern Church.

CONSENTING TO THE THINGS WRITTEN BELOW, that is, all the persons written below thinking together at the same time and giving assent; for "what touches all must be approved by all" (Extra, de re. iur., lib. VI). For with one plain and the same sense the Greeks and the Latins came finally together and consented, and the present declaration of faith was made by our most holy lord Eugene, so that that of Ps. LIIII may fit them: "We have walked in the house of God with consent." Such unanimity of consent was plainly necessary: partly for greater weight of authority, which is of such a kind that it is confirmed by the opinions of many (xcii. dist. c. Extra); and yet for greater firmness, because what has been defined once by unanimous consent about the faith in a universal synod is to be held with irrevocable firmness, as in ch. Maiores, XXIV. q. I. Wherefore blessed Gregory says, and it is held in ch. Sicut, dist. XV: those things which have been established by universal consent: whoever presumes to absolve those whom they bind, or to bind those whom they absolve, destroys himself and not those things. ²⁹ Thirdly, it serves the peace and joy of the Church: "Behold, how good and how pleasant (says the holy Prophet) it is for brothers to dwell together in unity"; where the gloss says that this befits all Christians, who ought to dwell together in mind and faith.

TO OUR MOST BELOVED SON: thus Pope John wrote to the most glorious and most merciful Emperor Justinian, ch. De summa trinitate et fide catholica. ³⁰ Likewise in the same way Pope Nicholas writes to the Emperor Louis, as in ch. In scripturis, dist. XCVI. The Pope calls some sons and some brothers; he calls brothers the Patriarchs, archbishops and bishops, as is held in ch. Quam gravi, Extra, de cri. fal., and below in this decree, where he says: "of our venerable brothers the Patriarchs, etc." ³¹ First, because, as has been said above, all these are endowed with equal honour with the Pope in the order of the episcopal dignity, under which all these are comprehended; then by the example of Christ, who calls his Apostles, to whom bishops succeed, brothers, as is found in Matt. XXVIII; and the other faithful, kings and princes, and whatever others of whatever dignity, he calls sons. For if, as blessed Gregory bears witness in ch. Quis dubitat, dist. XCVI, no one doubts that priests are reckoned fathers and teachers of kings and princes and of all the faithful, then there is no doubt that the Pope, chief of priests, is the father of all the faithful, as will be said below near the end of the present decree. ³²

JOHN. John is a gracious name, interpreted as the grace of the Lord, or in whom there is grace, or to whom it was given, or whose gift was given by the Lord. Truly this lord John, the Emperor, is gracious and was graced by the Lord with manifold gifts, who, besides the splendour of the greatest virtues which adorn imperial majesty, with which he has been marked out by divine power, has been given this most singular grace by the Lord, that he has deserved to see with his own eyes the most desired union of the Eastern and Western Church, which was not granted to his predecessors; and what is much more glorious, it was granted to him that by his industry, wisdom and immense labours he deserved to find it for his people; so that of him one may rightly say that saying of Wisdom VI: "A wise king is the stability of his people."

PALEOLOGO is the name of an illustrious house, from which he descends; and it is interpreted as "palaeologus", as if "old word" or "old speech", where it is noted that he drew clear origin from an ancient root. For from a long time this house, from which this illustrious Emperor descends, has shone with the glory of imperial majesty.

OF THE ROMANS. That is, Romans; but in this place Romans are understood as the Constantinopolitans, according to ch. Sane, XXIV. q. II; and the city of Constantinople is called the new Rome, as is gathered from ch. Diffinimus, dist. XXI.

ILLUSTRIOUS: brilliant, noble; whence Isidore, Etymologies, Book X: "illustrious" is a name of notice, because it is clear by the great splendour of birth, or of wisdom, or of virtue.

PATRIARCHS. For "patriarch" is interpreted as the prince of the fathers, from archos, which is "prince", and pater, "father"; whence in ch. Cleros, dist. XXI, it is said that according to the Greek language it is interpreted as the chief of the fathers. ³³ After the Pope there are four principal Patriarchs, namely the Constantinopolitan, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene and the Jerusalemite, as in ch. Renovantes, and in ch. Diffinimus, dist. XXII. The first of these, namely the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph by name, was personally present and gave his consent to what is written below; for although, before the synodal definition and publication of the union, he closed his last day, nevertheless in the city of Florence he protested that he would die in that same faith which the universal ecumenical synod, gathered together, would define. The other Patriarchs, namely the Alexandrian, Antiochene and Jerusalemite, were not present in person, but their locum tenentes were there: namely the Archbishop of Heraclea, the Archbishop of Trebizond, the Archbishop Cifigen., the Archbishop Rossenus, now the most reverend Cardinal TT.; the Archbishop Vicenus, now the most reverend Cardinal TT.; the Archbishop of Nicomedia, the Archbishop of Amasia, the Archbishop Turnonensis, the Archbishop Dramen., the Archbishop Methelinen., the Archbishop of Rhodes, the Archbishop of Lacedaemon, the Archbishop Monembalien., the Archbishop of Anchialus, the Archbishop Melemicen., the Archbishop Graven., the Archbishop Driftien., the Archbishop Mordoblachien.

AND THE OTHERS REPRESENTING THE EASTERN CHURCH: there were, moreover, before, several distinguished and respectable men from both states of the Church, both laity and clergy, who fully represented the Eastern Church. For there were, of the clerical state, the prelates of the Church of Constantinople: the great Oeconomus, the great Chartophylax, the great Skeuophylax, the great Ecclesiarch, the great Sacellarius; there were also very many distinguished Abbots: the great Protosincellus, the Abbot of the Pantocrator, the Abbot of Saint Athanasius, the Abbot of Saint Paul, the Abbot of Gorgopica; likewise two Abbots, envoys of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain.

As to the secular state, there were present: the lord Emperor of Constantinople, the lord Despot, brother of the same Emperor; envoys of the Emperor of Iberia, envoys of the Emperor of Trebizond, envoys of the great King of Rossia, envoys of the Despot of the Peloponnese, envoys of the great lord of Wallachia. For all these unanimously consented to the definitions written below. But here a question arises: whether the Emperor can claim for himself, from this place, that without his consent and approval no definition of faith may issue from a universal synod. The answer is no. For this was singular in this case: the consent of the Emperor of the Romans to what is written below was sent in advance, on account of the division of the Eastern Church from the Roman Church. For it is unlawful, as the Emperor Theodosius the Younger describes at the first Synod of Ephesus, that one who is not among the most serene ecclesiastical bishops should intrude into their deliberations, as in ch. Satis, XCVI. dist.; and in §. Huic etiam, dist. XVII, the most serene King, the lord Theoderic, with the Lord inspiring him, replied that nothing pertained to him in ecclesiastical matters except reverence; and laymen, although they attend general councils, do not intervene as co-definers or judges of causes of faith, nor as makers of laws, since such authority has been given to bishops, but as hearers to be taught. "The people is to be taught, not followed", says Pope Celestine in ch. Docere, dist. LXII. ³⁴

LET THE HEAVENS REJOICE, AND LET THE EARTH EXULT: the second part of the proem follows, in which Lord Eugene invites heaven and earth to common joy, saying LET THE HEAVENS REJOICE AND LET THE EARTH EXULT, which is taken from Ps. XCV: "Let the heavens rejoice." That is, the greater and superior, who, like the heavens, are high in the height of dignity, and bright in virtues and wisdom, stand out above the others in the Church; of whom the Psalm says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." "Let the earth exult": that is, the other faithful, who holds a lower grade and place in the Church; that is, from the greatest to the least all are partakers of this gladness: "Let all the earth adore you, O God", and in the Psalm, "let it sing to you and say a psalm to your name", Ps. XLIIII. Or "let the heavens rejoice": that is, the citizens of heaven, whom we know to take great delight in the progress, the peace and the unity of men. For there is joy among the angels in heaven, as our Saviour testifies concerning one sinner doing penance; and "let the earth exult": that is, men who are still pilgrims on the earth. Distinguish between "rejoice" and "exult", according to the gloss of Cassiodorus on Ps. XXX: to exult is to rejoice with great liveliness of mind; to rejoice is to rejoice with a moderate affection of mind, as is said in the gloss on Ps. XXXI: to rejoice is to rejoice with a quiet sweetness, to exult is to rejoice with the fervour of an excited mind. ³⁵

The wall that divided the Western and the Eastern Church has been taken out of the midst; and peace and concord have returned, Christ being the corner stone who made both one with the bond of most strong charity, joining each wall by peace and by a covenant of perpetual unity. After the long cloud of grief and the dark and unwelcome mist of long-standing division, the serene and desired light of union has shone forth for all.

The wall has been taken out of the midst here the third part of the proem is set down, in which the cause of so great joy is stated. Paries, that is, the obstacle which divided the Eastern and the Western Church. Sublatus est, etc., because, when there was only a wall of material, a heap of stones bound together by no mortar of firmness, it could easily be taken away, with divine power working (Job XXVIII). The stone of darkness, which offers an obstacle to unity, divides like a torrent, that is, the onrush of divine power, from the people. Ecclesiam, the Church and not churches, because the Church is one, spread throughout the whole world; "One is my dove", says the Holy Spirit, Canticles VI. Pax et concordia: peace, or concord, is an ordered quality of souls agreeing in good; yet peace is so great a good, as Augustine says in the City of God, that even in earthly and mortal things nothing is wont to be heard more gratefully, nothing desired more eagerly, and nothing, finally, can be found better. ³⁶

Indeed, good peace and concord had returned before between the Greeks and the Latins. Acts IV: "The multitude of believers had one heart and one soul"; the interlinear gloss: one sense, one soul, one will. By that corner stone, Christ Jesus Christ, who is the author of this peace and the doer of concord, is called the corner stone, the Apostle saying in Eph. II: "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Christ is called stone on account of firmness, because the whole building of the Church rests on him as on the first foundation, so that it may not fall, and the whole structure of ecclesiastical unity leans on him, so that it may not be dissolved. He is called chief on account of dignity, because he holds the summit of the ecclesiastical benefice. For he is "head over every church", Eph. I; he is called corner stone on account of the joining in himself of both peoples. Isa. ch. XXVII: "Behold, I will lay in the foundations of Zion a stone", that is, a corner stone of the Church, namely Christ; and Matt. XXI: "Have you never read that the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?", inasmuch as in him two peoples, like two walls coming from different corners, are joined to one another by the mutual kiss of peace; whence is subjoined: WHO MADE BOTH ONE, that is, each people one in faith and morals. ³⁷

Vinculo fortissimae charitatis charity is called a bond, because it binds all the members of Christ, that they may not depart; for as, in a material building, as Chrysostom says, stone is bound to stone with mortar between, so in the building of the Church a Christian is joined to a Christian through the mediation of charity. Col. III, the Apostle says: "But above all these things, says the Apostle, having charity, which is the bond of perfection." Of peace, which is the effect of charity, according to that of the Psalm: "Much peace to those who love your law"; joining the two walls, that is, each people, the Greek, namely, and the Latin; 1 Pet. II: "You yourselves, as living stones, are built up into spiritual houses"; **and of perpetual union, the covenant joining. This is Isa. LIIII: "The covenant of peace shall not be blotted out by me." After the long. That is, over a space of about two thousand years, of sorrow, as union brings joy, Solomon saying: "who follows the council of peace, joy follows him." Prov. XII: so division brings grief and sorrow. Augustine, in Book II of On Free Choice: "There is nothing that does not feel pain in division and pleasure in unity." Hosea: "Their heart is divided; now it has perished." ³⁸

The cloud as peace is serenity of mind, so division is a cloud and darkness of mind: 1 John I: "He who hates his brother is in darkness", and Isa. XLIV: "I have blotted out your iniquities like a cloud, and your sins like a mist." Long-lasting, and consequently most grievous; whence the Lord through the Prophet: "Thou hast grown old in the land of thine enemies," Baruch IV. Dark: the others say "dark", "black", that is, black or fierce; and rightly is the time of division and schism so called, because it is alien, profane and hostile; it cannot have God as Father who does not hold the unity of the universal Church. Unwelcome: both because, as Augustine says, outside the unity of the Church the gift of divine grace is not possessed, as Augustine says in Q. I, "Multa"; and because outside the unity of the Church the remission of sins is not had, as the same Augustine also bears witness in ch. Remissionem, same cause, Q. cum; and because outside the unity of the Church the Holy Spirit is not had, as Augustine says on John, and it is held in XI, q. III, ch. Nihil. ³⁹ Also because outside the unity of the Church the reception of the sacraments profits nothing, as blessed Gregory says in the Moralia, and it is held in XXIV, q. prima, Quia. ⁴⁰ And so on, whoever; also because outside the unity of the Church no sacrifice is acceptable to Christ, as blessed Jerome says, and it is held in ch. Quoniam vetus, XXIV, q. I. ⁴¹ Also because all evils arise from dissension; for where there is dissension nothing is right, as the gloss says, I, XI; whence Augustine says on John that a Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the body of Christ, and it is held in ch. Nihil, XI, q. III. Who could sufficiently enumerate the evils which arose from the division of the Greeks and the Latins? ⁴² Indeed there followed a diminution of faith, a fall of the Christian religion, a lessening of divine worship, the exile of peace and piety, and the desolation of the ecclesiastical principate; the Lord saying in Matt. XI: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate"; because, as Jerome says in the gloss, "as by concord small things grow, so by discord the greatest things fall to ruin." ⁴³

Darkness as division of minds is followed by darkness, so unity is followed by light, according to that of Baruch IV: "Learn where there is light of the eyes, and peace." The serene light of the desired union has shone upon all. 2 Cor. IV: "God, who said that light should shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts."

Let mother Church rejoice, who now sees her sons, hitherto at odds with one another, returned into unity and peace, and who before wept most bitterly over their separation; now, from their present wonderful concord, with ineffable joy, let her give thanks to almighty God.

Here it seems fulfilled what the Lord said through Jeremiah XXXI: "The virgin shall rejoice in the dance, that is, in the concord made, young men and old together; and I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow"; and below: "Let your voice rest from wailing and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, says the Lord."

Let all the faithful everywhere throughout the world rejoice, and let those who are reckoned by the Christian name rejoice together with mother Catholic Church.

In the person of the Church represented in this Ecumenical Synod, it can rightly be said to all the faithful what the woman who had lost a drachma is read to have said, after finding it, to her friends and neighbours, Luke XV: "Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma which I had lost."

Behold, the fathers of the West and of the East, after the longest time of dissension and discord, exposing themselves to the perils of sea and land, all labours overcome, came together with joyful eagerness to this holy Ecumenical Council, desiring to recover the most sacred union and the grace of ancient charity; and in their purpose they were in no way disappointed. For after a long and laborious search, by the clemency of the Holy Spirit, they at last obtained that most desired and most holy union. Who, therefore, will render worthy thanks for the benefits of almighty God? What dignity of divine mercy does not astonish? Whose iron heart would not be softened by the magnitude of such supernal piety? Surely these are utterly divine works, not discovered by human frailty, and therefore they are to be received with singular veneration and pursued with divine praises.

All labours overcome Augustine, in On the Morals of the Church: "nothing so hard and iron-like that it is not overcome by the fire of love" to this holy Council. ⁴⁴ This universal Council of the Catholic Church, true, indubitable and lawful, was translated by the authority of our most holy lord Eugene from Basel to Ferrara, by the counsel of his venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, with many other prelates and fathers of the Church consulting and approving; and finally, as the plague grew worse, it was translated from Ferrara to this city of Florence. No one of the faithful ought to doubt that the Roman pontiff, in whom the authority of convening councils resides (dist. XVII), is able and empowered to transfer the assembled council from place to place, or even dissolve it.

For there is a rule of law, taken from Chrysostom on Matt., that every thing which arises from whatever causes is dissolved by the same. ⁴⁵ And this the Roman pontiff can do especially, when a reasonable cause and the utility of the commonwealth manifestly demand it; since things are not for places, but places are to be loved for the things, as in ch. Novit, dist. XII; and II Macc. V: "The Lord chose not the people for the place, but the place for the people." Moreover, the Roman pontiff can not only transfer the council, as has been said, the cause remaining; but also, as Pope Nicholas of holy memory writes, he annuls the wickedly celebrated acts themselves, as happened in the case of the universal second Synod of Ephesus, which, because justice and moderation were not observed in it, nor the religion of faith, the most holy Pope Leo annulled, and for its correction established the Synod of Chalcedon by his authority. ⁴⁶ The Church knows throughout the whole world; says Pope Gelasius that the see of the pontiffs is not bound by the sentences of anyone. Gelasius: the blessed Peter the Apostle may have the right of resolving, since it has the right of judging concerning every church, XC, q. tertia, ch. Cuncta. ⁴⁷ That a lawful and most urgent cause, and the most evident utility of the Christian commonwealth, arose, so that the translation should be made by our most holy lord, is most well known to the whole world. For it is known to all that, since the Greeks were unwilling to hold the synod outside Italy, and protested this publicly through their envoys, had the said translation not been made by our most holy lord, the whole treaty of peace would have been broken off and all hope would have perished of so long desired a union; and our lyre, which with the greatest confidence of gain of so many souls had filled the Latins with joy, would be turned, with the greatest loss and mockery of the Western Church, into mourning. But it is argued to the contrary, because in the chapter Frequens, made at the Council of Basel, it is read in a new manner that dissolution or transfer of a synod actually assembled is forbidden to the Roman pontiff without the consent of two parts of the synod, but it is also declared that the Pope cannot dissolve or transfer the council without the consent of two parts of the council. To this it is said that the aforesaid decree in no way militates against what has been said, for many reasons. First, because such a declaration seems to be understood as outside the case of necessity and of evident utility, as our most holy lord has interpreted it, to whom belongs the interpretation of doubts which arise concerning universal councils, as in ch. Non licuit, dist. XVII. Whence, if such a declaration is understood thus, that in no case, even with a lawful and reasonable cause intervening, may the Pope transfer or dissolve the council, such a declaration is to be called erroneous and too dangerous for the useful state of the Church, as appears from what was declared, well done by Eugene our most holy lord, this holy Ecumenical Council approving, in the canon Moyses. Secondly, because the aforesaid decree, Frequens, was not concluded by unanimous consent, the Apostolic See not consenting but contradicting, and many other most approved fathers present in the same synod likewise opposing. Decrees of this kind are not properly to be called decrees of the universal council, but rather the opinions or obstinacies of certain men. For since a council is so called from common intention, those who dissent among themselves do not act as the council, because they do not agree in one, as in ch. Canones, dist. XV. This is also most clearly gathered from ch. Sicut, in the same dist., where Gregory calls the decrees of universal councils those which have been established by universal consent; of which kind surely this does not seem to be, against which the authority of the Apostolic See and of many other most approved fathers of the Church openly contradicts, as in ch. Regula, dist. XVII. ⁴⁸

Third, because the aforementioned decree was never approved or confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See, and neither were the other things established in the same synod; and decrees of councils have no force unless they have been confirmed by the authority of the Roman pontiff, as in the aforementioned chapter Regula, dist. xvii, and in the chapter Si Romanorum, dist. xix. Fourth, because councils cannot lay down law for the Pope, who is the Prince of the whole Church, as in the chapter Significasti, Extra, De electione. Fifth, because the power of the Pope, which is supreme in the Church of God, as the power of the supreme Vicar of Jesus Christ, is immediately from God himself, as in c. In novo, and the chapter Quamvis, dist. xxi, and the chapter Omnis, and c. Sacrosancta, dist. xxii, cannot be infringed, restrained, limited or diminished by any men whatsoever, even if they should convene in synod in however great a number; for indeed, as the chapter Omnis, dist. xxii, says, those who try to take away the privilege of the Roman Church, handed down by him who is the supreme head of all the churches, fall into heresy. Sixth, the argument drawn from the chapter Frequens does not contradict the truth or the authority of this Council of Florence, because that translation was made not only by our most holy Lord, with the approval and consent of the lord cardinals and many other prelates who were in the Roman curia and advised this for the good of the Church itself; it was also made, and first of all, by the Basel synod itself, since it was made by the legates and presidents of the Roman pontiff and by many other prelates and most grave fathers who made up the greater part of the synod, to whom, by the agreed judgment of all the fathers of the council, the authority of the synod had been devolved in this matter. For when a very grave and very dangerous dispute had arisen among the fathers of the council over the choice of a place, at last, with the Lord beforehand disposing many things, to remove the discord of the dissenting fathers, it was settled by the concordant judgment of the whole synod that if the city⁴⁹ of Avignon did not actually and effectively satisfy, within a certain term, the loan that had been agreed, then the holy council could, and was bound, to proceed to the choice of another place, and to provide for itself and for the universal Church from elsewhere. When that term had run out, and the Avignonese not paying, there is no doubt that the right of election passed to those who, carrying out the ordinance of the whole synod, provided for themselves and for the universal Church by proceeding to the election of a new place, even though they were constituted in a small number. This passage is what that text in ch. Omnibus, XXIV, q. 1, seems to look to, where Jerome says: having considered everything, I think it is not rashly said that some are so in the house of the Lord, that is in the universal Church, that they themselves are the same house of God, that is the Church. ⁵⁰

Moreover, since the aforementioned fathers were the executors of the ordinance of this same council, the act of that translation is rightly said to be the act of the synod itself, which ordained and provided for it, as in the chapter Litteris, Extra, De rescriptis. Ecumenical, that is universal, or worldwide, since bishops from the whole world came together, as in the chapter Canones, dist. xv, concerning the Council of Nicaea; with the desire of most holy unity: the aforementioned fathers reasonably desired this union with the highest longing, knowing that the Church is to have increase only through unity. For the whole body of Christ is joined together, governed and made stable by peace and concord, for which the Son so devoutly asks the Father, John xvii: Father, keep those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are one, which he so greatly desired among his disciples. Paul, to reckon this as the fulfilment of his desire, says to the Philippians, ii: Fulfil my joy, that you think the same, having the same charity. They came joyful and eager: alacer, according to Papias, is said of one who rejoices, is strong, ready, cheerful, swift; for Augustine says in his book On Penance: the force of desire makes the endurance of labours and pains possible, and no one willingly undertakes to bear what torments, unless for what delights him. ⁵¹

With their intention, they were in no way frustrated, Isa. lxv: My chosen ones shall not labour in vain. ⁵² After a long time ⁵³, for the discussion of the articles set out below and the treaty of peace lasted about two years. For, as Pope Callixtus says in the chapter Ponderet, dist. .o., we have no need of time, that we should act more maturely, lest we rush our councils and our works, lest we corrupt the order. ⁵⁴ Laborious: many and various labours were to be undergone in this work, and so many difficulties have at times arisen, so that very often there was no hope, or very little hope, of union. Search: for a definition or sentence is not to be given unless it has been preceded by careful deliberation. C. xi, q. 3, Summopere. At last the clemency of the Holy Spirit: since the Holy Spirit is love and the bond of Father and Son, the connection, or union, of the members of the Church with one another is rightly ascribed to him; whence Augustine, on that passage to the Ephesians, iv: Be eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, says in the Gloss: "for we are made one body by the fellowship which the Holy Spirit makes; he is the love and bond of Father and Son. To him therefore belongs the fellowship by which we are made one body and the only sons of God, just as, for, one body consists of many members, and one soul enlivens all the members, making the eye to see, the ear to hear, and so for the rest; so the Holy Spirit contains and enlivens the members of the body of Christ, which is the Church." 1 Cor. xii: All these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one as he wills. ⁵⁵ Most desired: I beseech you, says the Apostle, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you. Most holy: for the Holy Spirit dwells in those who are united and gathered together, according to that of Acts ii: When the disciples were together in one place, there came suddenly from heaven a sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where the Apostles were sitting; and Matt. xviii: Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. They attained: the fruit of good labours is glorious, Wisdom iii.

Who then would be sufficient to render worthy thanks for the benefits of Almighty God? As if to say, no one. Ecclus. xliii: Glorifying the Lord as much as you can, he will still surpass; and his wonderful greatness, blessing the Lord, exalt him as much as you are able, for he is greater than all praise. Who would not stand in awe at the riches of so great divine mercy? No one; whence, Eph. iii, the Apostle testifies to the unsearchable riches of the grace of Christ, and Esther v: You are very wonderful, Lord, and your face is full of graces. Whose iron breast would not be softened by the magnitude of so great heavenly pity? Here must be considered the most condemnable hardness of the hearts of the Basel fathers, since, seeing so great an abundance of divine pity, they did not turn aside from their evil way, were not softened, but refused to accept discipline; they hardened their faces more than rock, Jer. v, not heeding what the wise man says, Ecclus. iii: A hard heart will fare ill at the end. For a hard heart, as Bernard says in the book On Consideration, is one that is not split by compunction, nor softened by piety, nor moved by prayers, does not yield to threats, endures scourges, is ungrateful for benefits and weak for councils. ⁵⁶

These things are truly divine works, not inventions of human frailty. solu.: God, who makes concord in the heights, Job XXX; he it is who makes peace for those who are far off and for those who are near, Eph. ii; he it is at whose sole command to wind and sea a great calm was made, Matt. viii. ⁵⁷ He it is who, as the Holy Spirit bears witness in the Psalms, makes those of one mind to dwell in a house, Ps. lxviii. Unanimous, that is, those thinking one thing, he gathers into one, as Augustine explains in the Gloss. ⁵⁸ And therefore they are to be received with exceptional reverence and pursued with divine praises: One generation shall praise your works, and shall declare your power; they shall speak of the glory of your majesty, and shall tell of your wonders, Ps. CLIIII.

DECREE OF EUGENE IIII.

Praise be to you, thanks be to you, thanksgiving to you, Christ, fount of mercies, who have bestowed so much good upon your spouse, the Catholic Church, and in our generation have shown the miracles of your mercy, so that he may recount all your marvels. For God has bestowed upon us a great and divine gift, and we have seen with our eyes what many before us greatly desired to see and could not.

Here is set forth the fourth part of the Proem, in which, the greatness of the benefit conferred having been shown, thanks are offered to the Almighty, the giver of so great a gift. For since an effect naturally turns back to its cause (for the blessed Dionysius says, De divinis nominibus, ch. iiii, that God converts all things into himself as the cause of all), it is necessary that the effect be ordered to the end of the agent. It is clear, moreover, that a benefactor, as such, is the cause of the beneficiary; and therefore the natural order required that the universal Church, which had received so great a benefit from God, should turn back, through the recompense of thanks, to Christ its benefactor. For to the place from which the rivers of grace come forth, they return, so that they may flow again, Eccles. XLIII. ⁵⁹ For nothing so displeases God, especially in the sons of grace, as ingratitude, says Bernard; for ingratitude bars the paths of grace, and where grace has once been, it finds no access and has no place. Therefore the Apostle exhorts, 1 Thess. v: In all things give thanks. But because honour and reverence are owed to a benefactor as such, since he has the character of a principle, therefore it is written: Praise be to you, glory to you, thanksgiving to you. ⁶⁰

Isa. li: Gladness and joy shall be found in her, and thanksgiving and the voice of praise. Praise, as Aristotle says in the first book of the Rhetoric, is speech that sets forth the greatness of a virtue; ⁶¹ glory, as Ambrose says, is clear knowledge with praise; ⁶² which⁶³ the Gloss on Ps. vii says is praise celebrated by the mouth of many. Thanksgiving is said to be a certain compensation of grace owed to the virtue of justice; Cicero says it belongs there. ⁶⁴ Christ: for in Greek Christus, in Hebrew Messias, is said in Latin unctus, anointed. In the Old Testament kings and priests were anointed, but Christ was anointed not with visible oil but with invisible oil, that is, the fullness of spiritual grace; whence in the Psalm: God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. This name was an adjective for others, but became the proper name of Jesus, as the Gloss says on Rom. iii.

Fountain: Isa. xii: You shall draw water with joy from the springs of the Saviour. Indeed, in exchange for the paradise which we lost, as Bernard says, the Saviour has been restored to us. ⁶⁵ Just as four rivers flow from one fountain of paradise to water paradise, so four fountains proceed from the secret of the Lord's breast, from which four kinds of waters are drawn; whence the whole Church is watered throughout the world. The four fountains are truth, wisdom, virtue and charity; from these fountains waters are therefore drawn, each from its own: for from the fountain of truth are drawn the waters of judgments, from the fountain of wisdom the waters of counsels, from the fountain of virtue the waters of protections, and from the fountain of charity the waters of mercies. 2 Cor. i: Father of mercies, and God of all comfort. The mercies are called in the plural, both on account of the multitude of benefits which the clemency of the Redeemer bestows on our frailty (for many are the mercies of the Lord, 2 Kings xxiii), and on account of the unfailing flow of pity. For since it is a living fountain, it never ceases to flow out. Lam. iii: The mercies of the Lord, that we are not consumed, because his mercies have not failed; the interlinear Gloss: a living fountain does not know how to fail. To your spouse, Hos. ii: I will betroth you to me for ever; and Canticles iv: A garden enclosed, my sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, the Catholic Church, because the Church of heretics and of evildoers is not his spouse, Hos. ii: She is not my wife, and I am not her husband; let her put away her fornications from her face, etc. The Gloss: all these things apply to the Jews and to heretics, who follow various doctrines in heart and deed; but of the Catholic Church it is said, Canticles iv: You are all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you. That he may recount all your marvels: Bless God, and recount his marvels, Tobit xii. That many before us, greatly desiring to see, were unable, that to us may apply Matt. XIII: Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear; for many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see and did not see, and to hear what you hear and did not hear.

For the Latins and the Greeks, meeting in this most holy ecumenical synod, used great zeal in dealing with one another, so that among other articles that article concerning the divine procession of the Holy Spirit was debated with the greatest care and persistent inquiry. Testimonies from the divine Scriptures and very many authorities of the holy Doctors, Eastern and Western, were brought forward; some of them held that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and some that he proceeds from the Father through the Son; and all of them, looking to one and the same understanding, expressed it under different words. The Greeks indeed asserted that when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not use that expression with the intention of excluding the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, therefore they abstained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins, however, affirmed that they do not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son with the intention of excluding the Father, who is the source and principle of the whole Godhead, that is, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; nor that the Son does not have from the Father the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son; nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but that they assert there is only one principle and one spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

The Proem, once set forth, is followed by the narrative, and it is divided into four parts. First, it is related how the Latins and the Greeks came together in this holy ecumenical synod. Second, how a most diligent discussion of the truth was carried out concerning the articles on which there was discord between the Latins and the Greeks, above all concerning the article on the procession of the Holy Spirit, various and manifold authorities having been brought forward, as much from holy Scripture as from the holy Fathers. There, with great zeal, third, is set forth the understanding which the Greeks allege they have held hitherto concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. There, the Greeks indeed, fourth, is set forth the understanding which the Latins have always professed concerning the truth of the procession of the Holy Spirit. There, the Latins indeed, for the Latins came together, in the manner of the fathers of the primitive Church, of whom it is said in Acts xv that the Apostles and elders came together to consider this word; where the Gloss says: here the Apostles give an example of holding assemblies to discern those things which belong to faith. The Greeks in this most holy ecumenical synod are believed to have come together in as great a multitude and authority, both ecclesiastical and secular, as the Latins ever assembled in any synod since the beginning of the nascent Church. Synod: the word synod, interpreted from the Greek, means a gathering or assembly, as in the chapter Canones, dist. xv; and synod is said to come from sin, which is 'together', and oda, which is 'praise', that is, they praise or approve together. Inter alia: concerning many other articles, and although the discussion was carried on with the greatest diligence, nevertheless the discussion of the article on the procession of the Holy Spirit was held with greater zeal and more fervent diligence, both because the chief dispute between the Latins and the Greeks was over this, and because in nothing else was error more dangerous. It has been asked by some whether the error said to belong to the Greeks concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son was worse than their error concerning obedience to the Roman Church. Lord Guido the Carmelite answers, in the Quodlibet ⁶⁶ V, art. XVII, that the error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is worse, which he proves thus: as through the theological virtues we are joined more closely to God than through the moral virtues, so we are removed still further by an error opposed to the theological virtues than by an error opposed to the moral virtues; but the error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is against faith, and the error concerning obedience is an error in moral matters; therefore the first error is worse than the second. But although the conclusion of the Doctor is true, namely that the error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is worse than the error concerning obedience to the Roman Church, nevertheless the proof he assumes is no proof; for it presupposes in the minor premise that the error which was said to belong to the Greeks against obedience to the Roman Church was not an error against faith but against moral good, and this is false. For it can happen that one sins against obedience to the Roman Church in two ways. In one way, by denying that the Roman Church is the head of the others, and that it is not to be obeyed more than the other churches; and in this way to err concerning obedience to the Roman Church is to err against the Catholic faith, as in the chapter Omnis, dist. xxii. In another way it can happen to err concerning obedience to the Roman Church, by not obeying the precepts of the Church, without on that account thinking ill of her primacy, as when someone, though he holds and believes that she is to be obeyed as head of the other churches, wickedly refuses to obey the commands of the Roman Church; and in this way to err concerning obedience to the Roman Church is not to err in faith but in morals, because only obedience is sinned against, which is a moral virtue. It is clear, however, that the error imputed to the Greeks concerning obedience to the Roman Church was of the first kind mentioned, since they denied the primacy of the Roman Church; and consequently such an error was an error in faith, and not in morals, as the aforesaid Doctor seems to presuppose. Wherefore the aforementioned conclusion must be proved by another reason. For just as, other things being equal, those sins are graver which are against the precepts of the first table than sins against the precepts of the second table, because the former are directly against God, as blasphemy and perjury, or idolatry, are worse than theft or adultery; so an error against faith, which is more directly against God, is worse in itself. Such is the error of those denying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and especially according to the common opinion of the Doctors, who say that if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son he would not be distinguished from him. An error concerning obedience to the Roman Church is not so directly against God, nor is the article of obedience to the Roman Church so expressly gathered from holy Scripture as the article on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Secondly, the same conclusion is shown by the fact that an error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit includes an error concerning obedience to the Roman Church; for the Council of Lyons decreed under penalty of anathema that all must hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son: Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, in VI, c. Fideli. An error concerning obedience to the Roman Church does not necessarily include an error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, but it can do so by accident. As the aforesaid Doctor says, it can happen that an error denying that obedience is to be given to the Roman Church is worse than the first error. For by this error the remedy is excluded by which one might be cured of another error, and of other graver ones; just as an illness is said to be more dangerous when someone shrinks from the physician and the medicine, than a simple illness which would not induce horror of the physician. The spiritual physician, moreover, is the prelate of the Church himself. Yet the testimonies brought forward from the divine Scriptures and from very many authorities of the holy Doctors, Eastern and Western, both because, as Jerome says, what does not have authority from the divine Scriptures is despised as easily as it is proved; and because holy Scripture alone, on account of its infallibility, is the proper measure of judgment in faith, as in the chapter Non afferamus, Stateras dolosas, C. xxii, q. i. ⁶⁷

As for some indeed who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son among whom there were some of the authorities of the holy Greek Fathers, there follow those of the holy Epiphanius in the book called Auchirothon: "Thus the Father always was, and the Son always was, and the Holy Spirit is breathed from the Father and the Son." ⁶⁸ Likewise that of the same Doctor, in certain books entitled Against the Heretics: "If Christ is believed to be God from God, and the Holy Spirit from Christ, or from both; whence Christ says, who proceeds from the Father, and he shall receive of mine." ⁶⁹ Likewise that of Didimus in the book On the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of wisdom, cannot hear what he does not know when the Son speaks, since this very thing is what is brought forth from the Son, that is, God proceeding from God, the Spirit of truth proceeding from the truth." And below: "Nor is the Son something other than what is given to him by the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit another substance besides what is given by the Son." ⁷⁰ Likewise that of Athanasius in the creed of faith: "The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." ⁷¹

Likewise that of Cyril in the book of Treasures: well in the Gospel the Saviour says of himself, I am the truth. John, however, teaching in the Gospel that the Holy Spirit is also of the substance of the Father and the Son, says, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. ^{72 73} Among the authorities of the Latin Fathers who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son is that of blessed Hilary, On the Trinity, book ii, who says: "The Holy Spirit, from the Father and from the Son, is despised by the authorities." ⁷⁴ Likewise that of Jerome in his exposition of the Nicene creed: "We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who is true God just as the Son is." ⁷⁵ Likewise that of Ambrose in the first book On the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit also, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father, is not separated from the Son, as he could be separated from the Father, who is the Spirit of his mouth." ⁷⁶ Likewise that of Augustine in On Faith to Peter: "For it is eternal, or rather necessary, that the Son was born of the nature of the Father; and it is eternal and without beginning that the Spirit proceeds from the nature of the Father and the Son." ⁷⁷ And that of the same author, a little below: "There is one God the Father, who alone essentially begot from himself one Son; and one Son, who alone is essentially born of one Father; and one Holy Spirit, who alone essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son." ⁷⁸

Some indeed who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, among whom is that of Cyril in the book of Treasures: God, by his own hand, that is by wisdom, produced all things into being, and in his one true, unifying and deifying Spirit, co-essential with him, whom he breathed forth as naturally co-eternal through the same Son. ⁷⁹ Likewise that of Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, in his letter to the bishops and priests of Antioch, Alexandria and the holy city, which begins with 'the many and excellent dispensations of men', etc.; after many things he says thus: "And the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son." ⁸⁰ Likewise that of Maximus, expounding that passage of Zechariah iv: "I saw the golden candlestick," etc.: the Holy Spirit, just as it is by nature of God the Father, so also is of the Son according to essence, as proceeding ineffably from the Father essentially through the begotten Son. ⁸¹ Likewise that of Gregory of Nyssa: "We hold that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the mediation of the Son." Among the Western Fathers the authority saying the same is that of blessed Hilary, who in his book On the Trinity says: "Preserve, I pray, the religion of my faith; that what I professed in the creed of my regeneration I may always obtain: the Father, that is, thee and thy Son, and together with thee may worship thy Holy Spirit, who is from thee through thine only-begotten Son, and may deserve it." ^{82 83}

And though all look to one and the same understanding under diverse words, the understanding, chiefly as understood in the Scriptures, is to be considered, because, as Hilary says, the heresy lies in the understanding and not in the Scripture. And Dionysius, in Rationabile, says that what is perverse is not a matter of the power of intention, but of attending to words. Wherefore Gregory the Theologian says: let us not fight over words and names, provided the syllables carry to the same understanding, because, as he himself bears witness, our religion consists not in words but in meanings. And Jerome, against the Luciferian: the Scriptures consist not in reading but in understanding. ^{84 85 86 87}

The Greeks indeed asserted here is set forth the understanding which the Greeks say they have held concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, and it is divided into two parts. In the first they profess that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father they did not exclude the Son, but held that the Son too, together with the Father, is the principle and doer of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the second they assign the reason why they abstained from the explicit and express profession that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But because it seemed to them: the Greeks therefore assert that what they say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not utter with the intention of excluding the Son from the procession of the Holy Spirit, by denying that the Son himself is the doer and principle of the Holy Spirit; for they could not deny this without falling away from the Catholic faith. For, as the Latin professes below, it is the truth of the Catholic faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. But because it seemed to them, etc.: here is given the reason why the Greeks, although they believed the Son to be the author and principle of the Holy Spirit, said that they abstained from professing explicitly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As they say: this is added because it was hard for the Latins to believe it, since by the books and treatises of the Doctors of the Western Church, by the many disputations held with the Greeks, and by synodal declarations, it has been most thoroughly established throughout the whole Christian world that the Latins have always held and preached that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles and two spirations, but from one principle and by one spiration, as is clear from Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, in VI, c. Fideli. The Latins indeed affirmed: here is set forth the true and Catholic understanding which the Latins have always professed concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. It can be divided into three parts, according to the three things which the Latins exclude from the understanding they have when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. For the first thing they exclude is that the Father is not the fountain and principle of the whole Godhead, that what the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son would not have from the Father; thirdly, that the Father and the Son are two principles of the Holy Spirit, the second at or that it, and that the Holy Spirit, etc., thirdly at or that two, but that they are the fountain: indeed the Latins so assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that they believe the Father to be the fountain and principle of the whole Godhead. The fountain, indeed: for the blessed Dionysius says, in the second book On the Divine Names, that the Father alone is the fountain of the superessential Godhead. ⁸⁸ Likewise in the same place: the Father indeed is the fountain of the Godhead, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the deified Godhead, if it is fitting so to speak, the outflowings of the divine nature; as we have received from the holy oracles, flowers and substantial lights. But it seems that this profession of the Latins implies a contradiction: for on one side they profess that only the Father is the fountain of the Godhead, and on the other side they profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and consequently that not only the Father but also the Son is the fountain of the Holy Spirit. The answer is that there is no contradiction. On this it must be noted that fountain is taken in two ways: in one way properly, and in this way fountain is said only of that in which is the first origin of a nature; in another way fountain is taken broadly, and so fountain is also said to be the principle of any other thing in some nature. Taking the name of fountain in the first way, the Father alone is called the fountain, as Dionysius says, because in him is the first origin of the superessential Godhead; but the Son is said to be the river. ⁸⁹

Water indeed, which flows from the paternal fountain, from the river, the Son, is called the Holy Spirit, whence Athanasius, in the letter to Serapion: "Since the Father is the fountain, and the Son is called the river, we say that we drink the Holy Spirit." ⁹⁰ For it is written that we have all been made to drink of one Spirit. Likewise Chrysostom, on Ps. xciii: he calls the Father the fountain and the Son the river, and the water of the river, the Holy Spirit, taking the testimony of the Lord, who says: "Whoever drinks of this water which I shall give him shall not thirst for ever"; expounding which, the Evangelist says: "But this he said of the Spirit which those who believed in him were to receive." ⁹¹ But from the fact that the Father alone is called in this way the fountain of the Godhead, it does not follow that the Son is not the principle of the Holy Spirit. Taking the name of fountain in the second way, the Son himself too is called the fountain of the Holy Spirit; whence Athanasius, in a sermon of the Council of Nicaea: "the Holy Spirit is a river in a fountain" ⁹²; likewise in the letter to Serapion: "the Son is indeed with the Father a fountain and light, of which fountain and light the Holy Spirit is the true river and the splendour of eternal glory"; and in the letter on the Incarnation of the Word he says the same thing thus: "Therefore David, singing in the Psalm, said: For with you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light; and he knew that the Son with the Father is the fountain of the Holy Spirit." ⁹³ Principle: for Augustine says in the book On the Trinity, that the Father is the principle of the whole divinity, or, if it is better said, of the Godhead; but this seems false, because either "Godhead" is taken for the divine essence, or for the persons. If for the persons, it does not thus seem true that the Father is the principle of the whole Godhead, that is, of all the persons, since he is not the principle of himself. If for the essence, it seems false, because the Father is not the principle of the divine essence; for the divine essence neither begets, nor is begotten, nor is breathed, as is held in the chapter Damnamus, Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica; and it is also held in the Master of the Sentences, book i, dist. v. ⁹⁴ I answer that it must be said, according to the opinion of St Thomas, both in the first part, question 39, article 5, and in the first book of the Sentences, at the end of distinction 29. ⁹⁵ It can be taken in either way. If it is taken for the essence, then the "whole" in this place does not speak of the integrity⁹⁶ of the parts but of the perfection of the nature; and the Father is said to be the principle of the whole Godhead, not because he begets or breathes the Godhead, but because, by begetting or breathing, he communicates the Godhead, so that the sense is: he is the principle of the Godhead, that is, so that the Godhead may be had. But in this way the Son too could be called the principle of the whole Godhead, since from him perfect divinity is in the Holy Spirit; except in this respect, that it is not from him in every way in which it is communicable, as it is from the Father. If however the Godhead is taken for the totality of the persons, then it is plainer, since in this way he is called the principle of the whole divinity inasmuch as in all the persons he himself is the principle from whom the other persons flow; just as a point is called the principle of the whole line, although it is not the principle of itself, and one is called ruler of the whole people, although he is not the ruler of himself. That this is the consideration which the blessed Augustine declares, the Master of the Sentences deduces in book i, dist. xxxviii, and in the fifth distinction. ⁹⁷ For Augustine says in book iv, On the Trinity: the Father is the principle of the whole divinity, or, if it is better said, of the Godhead, because he is from no one; for he has nothing from which he is, or from which he proceeds; but from him the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore he is not called the principle of the whole divinity because he is the principle of himself or of the divine essence, but because he is the principle of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in whom together the whole divinity is; and according to this understanding the Latins, in the present declaration, take the Father to be the principle of the whole Godhead. Whence it follows, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that it follows according as the Latins, from the understanding they have of the procession of the Holy Spirit, exclude; or, that is, they do not so concede that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; that, fourthly, what the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son does not have from the Father: since whatever the Son has, he has from the Father, and from the Father he has it all, whence the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. ⁹⁸

Whence Augustine, in XV On the Trinity: for from whom the Son has it that he is God — for he is God from God — from him he assuredly has it also that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him; according to which the Latins exclude from that understanding which, as has been said, they have concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, Whether, that is, they do not so believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,

That they posit two principles or two spirations, but that they assert only one principle and one spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have hitherto asserted; as is clear from Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, the most ancient Doctors of the Western Church, who manifestly in their books asserted and taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one principle and by one spiration. The Greeks themselves are witnesses to this matter, for in the universal Council of Lyons, under Gregory X, with the Latins present and the Greeks consenting, this declaration was made in form: "We confess that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one, not by two spirations but by one spiration." This the holy Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the faithful, has professed hitherto, holds firmly, preaches and teaches; as is contained in Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, Book VI, in which synod the symbol, with the aforesaid declaration and the addition filioque, was solemnly sung by the whole synod three times in Greek and three times in Latin. ⁹⁹

And since from all these things one and the same sense of the truth is drawn out, at last they unanimously agreed and consented, in the same sense and with the same mind, to the holy and God-pleasing union set out below.

Here is set forth the conclusion, and it is divided into two parts. In the first it states that, having weighed what had been put forward on each side, the Latins and the Greeks equally held the same thing concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, with good concord having been reached on the other articles, which had also been discussed, they came with unanimous consent and equal will to the definition set out below. In the second part the definition itself is set out, at In the name therefore of the holy Trinity. Here, as the Master says in the first book of the Sentences, I said that the Greeks seemed to agree with the Latins in the same sense of faith, although they disagreed in words. ¹⁰⁰ And St Thomas says, in his Questions on Power: "If anyone considers rightly, he will find that the sayings of the Greeks differ from us more in words than in sense." ¹⁰¹ Holy: Salute one another with a holy kiss, 1 Cor. xvi; the Gloss: in the peace of Christ. God-beloved: Ecclus. xxv: In these things it is pleasing to my spirit; these are approved before God and men: the concord of brothers, etc.; and Augustine, in the chapter Ipsa, C. xxii, q. 4, says: "The banquet of the Lord is the unity¹⁰² of the body of Christ, not only in the sacrament of the altar, but also in the bond of peace." ¹⁰³ In the same sense: according to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. i: But be perfect in the same sense and the same knowledge. Unanimously: according to that of the Apostle to the Philippians, ii: being of one mind, thinking the same thing; and Canticles iv: You have wounded my heart, my spouse, with one of your eyes; the Gloss: in the unity of the preachers, because all preach, love and seek the same thing.

In the name, therefore, of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with this holy universal Florentine Council approving, we define that this truth of faith be believed and received by all Christians, so that all profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and by one spiration.

Here is set forth the definition itself, and it is divided into two parts. First, for our most holy lord invokes the holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one true, eternal and unchangeable God, creator of all creatures, from whom all things are, in whom all things are, and through whom all things are. Secondly, it will go on to the definition, at We define, and this is divided into two. In the first is set forth the definition of the articles on which there was controversy between the Latins and the Greeks. In the second, the declaration that the Roman Pontiff has the primacy over the whole world, and the order which the other Patriarchs ought to have among themselves, is set forth, at RENEWING. The first is into eight parts, according to the eight principal articles of faith defined and declared in this most holy synod, in which the principal controversy between the Latins and the Greeks was said to consist. In the first part it defines that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one principle and by one spiration; in the second, what the body of Christ is consecrated from in wheaten bread, unleavened or leavened; in the third, that there is a purgatory after this life; in the fourth, that the suffrages of the Church profit the faithful departed; in the fifth, that the souls of the saints, stripped of their bodies, who have carried nothing needing purgation with them, are straightway received into heaven; in the sixth, that the souls of the blessed see God clearly, and indeed more perfectly than others; in the seventh, that the souls of those who depart in original sin, or in mortal sin, go down straightway into hell, to be punished with unequal penalties; in the eighth, that the Roman pontiff has the primacy over the whole world. The second parts are marked: at Also, in the unleavened, the second; at Also, whether penitents, the third; at That from penalties of this kind, the fourth; at And their souls, the fifth; at And to see God clearly, the sixth; at And the souls of those, the seventh; at Also we define, the eighth. Again, the first is divided into two: for first the truth of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is defined; secondly, it is declared what was the understanding of the holy doctors in what they say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the second beginning at Declaring, therefore, in the name of the holy Trinity. Well known is the clarity of this definition, the unanimity of faith and the effect of this holy union, all of which are attributed to the Trinity as to the fountain of all goods; for, as is attested, whatever the divine mercy does in the disposition of things comes from the providence of the whole Trinity. There is one kindness and mercy there, one censure of justice, and nothing in nature is divided where nothing in will is different. ¹⁰⁴

Approving, it seems that in universal councils, if the Roman pontiff be present in person, the council does not seem authoritatively to decree or define, but the Roman pontiff alone, as prince of the Church; yet the council advises, as in Extra, De baptismo, c. Fi; or it consults, as in c. Ad apostolicae, De sententia et re iudicata, in VI; or it approves, as in Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus; and so in the present decree, the Florentine Council. And although this universal council was begun at Ferrara by the transfer made from Basel, and there the discussion of matters and the treatise of peace and union took its chief start, nevertheless, because at Florence this most glorious work of peace and union received its completion, it has been called Florentine, just as a thing is named from the place where the greater part of this business was held. Florence has taken its name from flos, flower, and rightly so, for it flourishes and shines with all goods in every kind of praise; divine providence seems to have placed in it all that can be found in a most famous city for ornament and splendour. It is indeed rich in the multitude of its people, most adorned in the beauty of its buildings, most magnificent in the abundance of its wealth, most copious in the multitude of its delights, most famous in the nobility of its citizens, and most devoted in the observance of piety and the worship of the Christian religion. But let us not pass over this also: Florence is the head of the famous nation of Etruria, and it has always been most renowned for its reputation in religion. For we learn that from it the rites and ceremonies were always handed down to the city of Rome, as Valerius testifies,¹⁰⁵ that Roman noble youths were sent every year to learn the discipline of Etruscan religion; and Livy, the father of Roman history, attests this when he says: "The ceremonies, moreover, the worship of the gods and the religion, in which the Etruscans especially excelled, the Etruscans so taught the Romans that they kept the greater part of it for themselves; for which reason, in grave dangers of every kind, we read that Etruscan seers were sent for from Rome, or sent thither to interpret the oracles of the gods; whence it came about that every practice of that discipline was called Etruscan by the Romans." ¹⁰⁶

Who now could doubt that it was not without a special disposition of the supreme counsel that this illustrious work of holy union, through which the Christian religion has gained increase, strength and splendour, and for which so many ages had longed, was so happily brought to completion in this most flourishing and most religious city? Hence the city itself is bound, with mind¹⁰⁷ most devout, to render to God the most devout thanks and to offer the greatest praises, since he has deigned¹⁰⁸ to illuminate it with so great a glory. We define: it belongs to the Roman pontiff to determine by sentence, and to define, the things that are of faith, so that they are held unshaken by all. First, because there must be one faith of the whole Church, according to that of 1 Cor. i: Say all the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you; but this unity could not be preserved, says St Thomas, unless a question of faith that has arisen were determined by one who presides over the whole Church, so that his judgment is firmly held by the whole Church. ¹⁰⁹ Hence it is said in the chapter Quotiens, C. xxiiii, q. 1: As often as the reason of faith is discussed, I judge that all our brother co-bishops ought to refer it only to Peter, that is, to the authority of his name and honour, as your Love has now reported. Hence, in the universal Council of Vienne, Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, at the beginning, it is said that it pertains to the Apostolic See alone to declare matters of faith. Secondly, because the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, for whose see's faith the Lord prayed in a singular way, Luke xxii: I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail, etc. Hence it is said in the chapter A recta, C. xxiv, q. 1, that the holy and apostolic Church, by the grace of almighty God, has been proved never to have erred from the path of apostolic tradition. And in the chapter In sede, same cause, q., it is said: in the apostolic see the religion of the Catholic faith has always been preserved free from stain. Thirdly, because it was said of Moses, who bore the figure of the Roman pontiff, Exod. xviii: Be for the people in those things which pertain to God, that you may bring to him the things that are said, and show the people the ceremonies and the rite of worship. Likewise, it belongs equally to the authority of the Roman pontiff to declare and define the greater and more difficult questions of the Church, as in the chapter Dudum, C. iii, q. vi, and in the chapter Rogamus, C. xxiv, q. 1, and in the chapter Maiores, Extra, De baptismo. That this truth of faith: some truth is proved to be of faith in three ways, and according to these three ways it will be shown that this is a truth of faith, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. First, indeed, a truth is proved to be of faith when it is contained explicitly or implicitly in holy Scripture; for, as Augustine says in the book On the Unique Baptism, and it is recited in the chapter Quis nesciat, dist. ix: concerning holy Scripture no one can in any way dispute or doubt whether it is right and true that anything is written in it. In the second way a truth of faith is proved by the declaration or approval of the universal Church, as is gathered from the chapter Sicut, and the chapter Sancta Romana Ecclesia, dist. xv. In the third way it is proved that some truth is of faith by the determination of the Apostolic See, as from the chapter Si Romanorum, dist. xix, and from the chapter Haec est fides, C. xxiv, q. 1. ¹¹⁰ By these three ways it is shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is a truth of faith. And first, the first way is shown, namely that which is from the authority of holy Scripture; and this is taken most clearly from all those passages of holy Scripture, both of the Old and of the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit is named the Spirit of the Son. For it is said in Job xxxiii: The Spirit of God made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life; likewise in Psalm xxxii: By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power; the mouth, moreover, of the Father is the Son, just as the Word is, as the Gloss of Augustine has it. Likewise, the Apostle, Rom. viii: If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. ¹¹¹ And a similar judgment is found in very many other passages of holy Scripture, namely that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son. But lest anyone should be able to say that one spirit is other who proceeds from the Father, and another who is of the Son, it is shown immediately from the words of the same Apostle that the Spirit is the same of the Father and of the Son; for after he had said, If the Spirit of God dwells in you, he at once adds, If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his, so as to show that the Spirit of the Father and of the Son is one and the same. Whence the Gloss there says: the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are the same. And Basil, against Eunomius, after he had brought in the words of the Apostle, says: "Behold, in the Father and the Son the Apostle saw the one Spirit, of the Father and of the Son." ¹¹² And Theodoret the Greek, on the Epistle to the Romans, expounding the same word of the Apostle, says thus: "The Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son." ¹¹³ This being presupposed as a Catholic foundation, namely that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son of God, the rest is to be considered: how this is to be understood. Someone could say that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son for this reason alone, that he has him fully as man, according to that of Luke iv: Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan; and according to that of John i: from his fullness we have all received. But this solution cannot be sustained. First, because it is said to the Galatians, iv: Because you are sons of God, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying "Abba, Father"; therefore the Holy Spirit makes us sons of God insofar as he is the Spirit of the Son of God. And we become adoptive sons of God by assimilation to the natural Son of God, according to that of Rom. viii: Whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. The Holy Spirit is therefore the Spirit of Christ insofar as he is the natural Son of God; whence Athanasius ¹¹⁴ in the letter to Serapion says that you have received the Spirit of adoption, that is, the natural Spirit from the nature of the natural Son. Secondly, that answer cannot stand, because it is found written by the principal doctors of the Greeks that the Holy Spirit is the natural Spirit of the Son. For Athanasius says in the third sermon of the Council of Nicaea: as in Christ our nature lives deifically, and he himself reigns in it, so too, in his natural Spirit, may we be: let us live and reign. ¹¹⁵

The Holy Spirit is not natural to Christ according to his humanity, because it does not belong to the nature of his humanity, but is poured out freely by God into the nature of his humanity. Whence Athanasius, in the sermon on the Incarnation of the Word, says that Christ himself sent the Spirit from on high, as God the Son, and himself received the Spirit from below, as man; therefore from the same Spirit he dwells in himself, from his divinity into his humanity. ¹¹⁶ Therefore the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Christ because he has excellently filled his humanity, but rather because he is from his divinity. Thirdly, the aforesaid answer is refuted, because the Holy Spirit is so called the Spirit of the Father as he is the Spirit of the Son. Whence Christ says to the disciples, Matt. x: It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you; and John xiv says: the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. But it is manifest that he is called the Spirit of the Father because he exists eternally from him; by the same reason it must be said that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, because he proceeds eternally from him, and is breathed. ¹¹⁷ Whence Cyril, on John, says that the Holy Spirit is proper to God the Father, but is not less of God the Son; not as another and another spirit. ¹¹⁸ If, however, someone wishes to say that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son according to divinity, as given and sent by the Son in time, not as proceeding and breathed eternally from the Son, this cannot stand, both from what has been said and because, as the blessed Cyril says in his exhortatory sermon to the Emperor Theodosius: the Holy Spirit, as he is proper to the Father from whom he proceeds, so in truth he is also of the Son himself. If therefore he is of the Father not only because he is given and sent by him in time, but also because he exists eternally from him, by the same reason he is to be called the Spirit of the Son, namely because he proceeds eternally from him. Moreover, if someone wished to say that the Holy Spirit is therefore called the Spirit of the Son because he is of the same nature and essence as the Son, and not because he proceeds eternally from him, he would not speak rightly. For if identity of nature were sufficient for the Holy Spirit to be called the Spirit of the Son, by the same reason the Father could be called the Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Son the Spirit of the Holy Spirit; but this conversion of the consequence is not admitted. For as Gregory of Nyssa says in his On the Lord's Prayer: the Son is not of the Holy Spirit, nor is he said to be, nor is the relation converted, so to speak, in the consequence; and this plainly for the reason that what is begotten cannot be built up in some relation which is not a relation of origin, since only such a relation distinguishes persons; but a relation of another cause, namely material, formal, or final, is not found among the divine persons. The Father and the Son have the same relation, or authority of the originating principle, with respect to the Holy Spirit, and not the reverse. It must therefore necessarily be said, since the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son in the authorities adduced above, that he is spirated naturally, or essentially, from the Son himself. But an objection is raised against this: "It is one thing to say the book of Peter, another the book made by Peter; therefore, likewise, in the case at hand it does not follow that the Spirit of the Son is originated or spirated by the Son." It is answered that although the genitive does not always denote a relation of principle, but sometimes of possession, as in the example proposed and the like, nevertheless, since in divine things no diversity falls, no relation other than that of origin can exist between the persons, and this alone can stand with the equality of perfection of the divine persons. Hence, by reason of this, that genitive is determined to denote in this place a relation of principle; and therefore to say "the Spirit of the Son" is the same as to say "the Spirit proceeding from the Son." There may be another reason for this, because "Spirit," as an absolute name, like the name God, does not properly take a construction with the genitive; for then to say "the Spirit of the Son" would be the same as to say "God of the Son." Therefore it is necessary that "Spirit" be taken as it is said from spiration, and thus it is a name importing origin, for it is said from spirating. For says the great Athanasius, in the book entitled Refutation of Meletius and Eusebius: "The procession of the Holy Spirit is not likened to a birth, but to a breath, as one who proceeds from the mouth. Therefore, as the Son is of the Father, so to say the Spirit of the Son is to say the Spirit who is from the Son." ¹¹⁹ Wherefore Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, treating that passage of Psalm xxxii, The Spirit of his mouth, all their power, in the book On the Right Dogmas, says: "The Spirit of his mouth, namely the Holy Spirit of God, is so called, although the mouth is the only-begotten, and the Spirit again proceeds from him, and is sent not only from the Father but also from the Son." And Augustine, against the heretic Maximus: "The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, since he proceeds from both." Whence, since that which is said, the Holy Spirit, and is the Spirit of the Son, must necessarily be taken according to some relation of origin, it is most manifest that holy Scripture, saying that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, must necessarily be held as a truth of faith: that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son. ^{120 121}

Hence Augustine, in On Faith to Peter, ch. xi, holds most firmly, and you must not at all doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son; for the Son says: "When the Spirit of truth comes, who proceeds from the Father," where he taught that the Spirit is his own, because he himself is the truth. ¹²²

Let no one, however, be moved against the course of this argument by what the Apostle says to the Colossians, in the first chapter: "He hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love." For it is not to be argued from this equally that the Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit is love or dilection, but from the Father alone. Whence it is to be noted, as is gathered from the words of blessed Augustine, in book XV of On the Trinity, and from the Master of the Sentences, in I, dist. x., that the name of love or dilection can be taken in two ways in divine matters: essentially, for the Father is charity, the Son is charity, the Holy Spirit is charity, and all together are one charity. It is also taken personally, and in this sense it is properly said of the Holy Spirit. When, however, in the aforesaid authority the Son is named the Son of dilection or charity, there dilection is taken essentially, and the sense is: he is the Son of dilection, that is, of his beloved Father, that is, of the substance of his own paternal nature. As Augustine expounds it in the Gloss, saying: "For the charity of the Father is his nature and substance, and therefore no one is the Son of his charity except the one who has been begotten of his substance." ¹²³ Next, secondly, from the same path of the holy Scripture, the aforesaid truth is shown to be a truth of faith, from that passage of Joel II.: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Where, according to the Gloss and the teaching of blessed Peter in Acts II., in his sermon on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is the one whom the Son of God poured out upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. It is also said in John: "In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." Since it is manifest that this passage of Scripture cannot truly be adapted to the holy Son of God unless the Holy Spirit, whom the Son calls his own and to be poured out by him, proceeded essentially from the Son himself, it must necessarily be believed that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is the truth of God. Whence blessed Cyril, expounding this prophetic word, speaks thus: "For insofar as God is, and by nature the Son from God, he was born of God the Father, his own, and in him and from him is the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is understood to be from God the Father himself." ¹²⁴ And the same in his book Against Nestorius, for he says, God through one of the prophets: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." He fulfilled this, however, by bestowing upon Christ his own Spirit. ¹²⁵ Thirdly, from the same path of Holy Scripture, the same is shown by the authority of the New Testament, from those places where Sacred Scripture relates that the Son sends the Holy Spirit. For Christ says in John XV.: "When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you, the Spirit of truth"; and in John XVI.: "If I go, I will send him to you." But he who sends has some authority with respect to the one sent. Therefore it must be conceded that the Son has authority with respect to the Holy Spirit. It cannot be said that this is an authority of lordship, or of any greater rank, authority, power, wisdom, or the like, because the unity of the divine essence does not admit such a thing, nor does the equality of power of the divine persons; but it is to be understood according to origin alone, which implies no greater rank of one person over another. Therefore it is the truth of faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. And if anyone should object to this that the Son too is read to be sent by the Holy Spirit, for it is written in Luke IV., in the person of Christ: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, and he hath sent me to preach the gospel to the poor," and in Isaiah LXII.: it must be considered that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit according to his human nature. According to that nature all authorities speaking in general terms are to be understood, such as that of Isaiah XLVII.: "And now the Lord hath sent me and his Spirit," and the passage brought forward from Isaiah LXII. and Luke IV., as is clearly evident from the very sequence of the words, that the Holy Spirit was upon Christ in his human and not in his divine nature. But the Holy Spirit did not assume a created nature, so that he could be said to be sent by the Son according to it, or so that the Son should have authority over him in respect of it. It remains, therefore, that with respect to the eternal person the Son has authority over the Holy Spirit, just as the Father does. And this opinion is confirmed by the authority of the Nicene, a distinguished Doctor of the Greeks, speaking above on John: "The Father sends the Holy Spirit by no property by which the Son does not send him, nor does the Son send the Holy Spirit by any other property by which the Father does not send him." From this it is clear that the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit by the same property, and consequently, just as the Father sends the Holy Spirit because he eternally exists from him, so too the Son, sending the Holy Spirit, is to be said to do so because the Spirit eternally exists from him. ¹²⁶

Fourthly, the same truth of faith is shown from that passage of John XV., where Christ speaks thus of the Holy Spirit: "When that Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth; for he will not speak of himself, but whatever he shall hear, that he will speak." Where Augustine says in the Gloss: "To hear is for him to know, and to know is to be. Since therefore he is not from himself, but from him from whom he proceeds, from whom he has his essence, from him his knowledge, from him his hearing." Therefore the Spirit always hears, because he always knows from him; therefore he has heard, hears, and will hear from him from whom he is. But the Holy Spirit is said to hear from the Son just as from the Father; therefore, whatever he speaks, it is concluded of necessity that the truth of faith is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. ¹²⁷ Whence great Basil, in his sermon to the Monks which begins "By the grace of most merciful God we believe," says: "One sole Paraclete, the Spirit in whom we are sealed unto our redemption: the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of adoption, in whom we cry: Abba, Father," ¹²⁸ who divides and works the gifts of Christ to each one as he wills, teaching and admonishing, and suggesting whatever¹²⁹ he has heard from the Son. Likewise Athanasius, in his Epistle to Serapion, X.: "Christ said of his Spirit that he will not speak of himself, so that there might be in the Holy Spirit a principate which is of the Father alone; but he is most of all and properly from the Son himself, from whom he received that he should be God in essence; from him also he hears what he speaks." ¹³⁰ And Didymus, as is found in the continuous Gloss expounding that "because he will receive of mine," says thus: that the Holy Spirit is said to receive from the Son; that which had been of his nature is to be understood; and not another giving and receiving, but one substance is signified, since the Son too is said to receive the same things from the Father, in which he himself subsists. ¹³¹ But it is not to be passed over that Augustine, noting above that word of the authority already brought forward concerning the Holy Spirit, "but whatever he shall hear, he will speak," says: "Let it not disturb anyone that the word is put in the future tense, for that hearing is eternal, because the knowledge is eternal. Of that which is eternal, without beginning and without end, a verb of any time is used; for although that nature, being unchangeable, may not receive 'was' and 'will be' but only 'is', nevertheless we do not speak falsely when we say 'was', 'is', and 'will be': it was, because it never failed; it will be, because it never will fail; it is, because it always is." ¹³² Fifthly, this same is shown most clearly from the fact that in the same place of the Gospel the Son goes on about the Holy Spirit, speaking thus: "He will glorify me, because he will receive of mine, and will declare it to you." A divine person necessarily proceeds from him from whom he receives his being, or his essence; therefore the Holy Spirit, who is said to receive from the Son, must necessarily be said to proceed from him. For we know very well that if he receives only what he himself is, since by reason of his highest simplicity he can receive nothing that he himself is not, then it cannot be said, as some have wrongly supposed, that this which is said, "he will receive of mine," is to be explained as "from my Father": both because possessive pronouns of the masculine or feminine gender were never customarily used in Holy Scripture without the addition of the article, and because the most illustrious Doctors and Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, have interpreted that word of the Gospel otherwise, taking it in the Son as if he said, "he will receive of mine," that is, from my own, from my substance, that is, he will receive from my whole fullness. Whence Saint Athanasius, in his Epistle to Serapion: "The Son indeed says: what I hear from my Father, this I speak in the world; but the Spirit receives from the Son." ¹³³ "From mine," he says, "he will receive, and will declare it to you." Likewise, the same Athanasius in the same place, of himself essentially to his Apostles, and in demonstrating to his spouse the Church, that the Holy Spirit, who exists as God, is of his own proper essence, Christ affirmed, saying thus: "He will receive of mine": as from my essence he has it that he is God, so from me he has both to be and to speak. ¹³⁴ Moreover, it cannot stand which some have wished to say, that what is said, "he will receive of mine," is to be understood of that which is the Son's, without its being received from the Son; and that for this reason the Son says "he will receive of mine," because the Holy Spirit receives the Father's essence from the Father, which essence is indeed also the Son's, as they assert is hinted at by the following words of the Lord. For he adds, as if explaining himself: "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said to you that he will receive of mine." Certainly this understanding cannot stand, as is most openly concluded from the Lord’s expounding itself. For if all things that are the Father's are the Son's, the authority of the Father, according to which he is the principle of the Holy Spirit, is necessarily also the Son's own. Therefore just as the Holy Spirit receives what is the Father's from the Father, so from the Son he receives what is the Son's. Whence Athanasius, in the third book Against the Arians, says: whatever the Spirit has, he has received from the Word. And Didymus, as is found in the continuous Gloss, expounding that "because he will receive of mine," says thus: it must be known that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which was to be known by his own nature; and that they do not signify another giving and another receiving, but one substance, since indeed the Son is also said to receive the same things from the Father, in which he himself subsists. For there is nothing else except those things which are given to him by the Father, nor is there any other substance of the Holy Spirit besides that which is given to him by the Son. And Basil, against Eunomius, with the denomination passing from the Father to the Son, so that as God the Father is God, so the Son is God, of the Lord the Lord, of the Almighty the Almighty, of the Wise the Wise, of the supremely speaking the Word, of the power of power; just as the Son has in himself the names of the Father, so also the Holy Spirit is Lord and God almighty, wise, power, taking these names naturally, and has them from the Lord God the Father and the Son, from whom he is and is given. ¹³⁵ Also, eighthly, it is shown from that passage of John XIV., where Christ, speaking of the Holy Spirit, says: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things." For how can it be said that the Holy Spirit is sent in the name of the Son, unless he proceeded from the Son himself by eternal emanation? For to be sent in the name of the Son seems, according to the usage of speech, to be the same as to be sent by the authority of the Son. And since authority in divine matters is not considered except the authority of origin, it is manifest that the Holy Spirit could not be said to be sent in the name of the Son unless he proceeded from him. ¹³⁶ For the holy Athanasius says, in the Epistle to Serapion: "This is the order of the divine nature from the Father in the Son: that he who is from no one is sent by no one, and that he who is from another does not come in his own name, but in the name of him from whom he exists. So also the Holy Spirit, who is not from himself, ought not to come from himself, but in the name of him from whom he is, and from whom he has that he should be God as hypostasis, as the Son says of him: but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." ¹³⁷ Likewise Anselm, on the procession of the Holy Spirit, proving from this place that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, says thus: "Christ says in the Gospel: the Father will send the Holy Spirit in my name. What is 'the Father sends in my name,' unless it is 'whom the Father sends, I send'? As when Christ says, 'whom I shall send from the Father,' it is nothing other than 'I shall send,' and the Father. Whence the sense is: the Father will send in the name of the Son, that is, as the Son would send. Since therefore he is sent by both, he must be believed to proceed from both." ¹³⁸ Seventhly, it is shown in the Holy Scriptures from that passage of John XX.: "He breathed on them, and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit." Since nothing can be given by anyone except what is the giver's, it is manifest — since the Son gives the Holy Spirit — that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. This Christ himself, the power of God and the wisdom of God, most openly designated by that insufflation, by which, breathing upon his disciples, he said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." Whence Augustine, which is also found in the continuous Gloss: That corporeal breath was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a demonstration, by a fitting signification, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but from the Son. ¹³⁹ For what man of the greatest folly would say that the Spirit whom he gave by breathing was one, and the Spirit whom he sent after his ascension was another? Likewise Anastasius of Antioch, Patriarch, in his book On the Right Dignities, says: The Lord, showing that the Holy Spirit is from himself, breathed on his disciples and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And Athanasius, in a Sermon of the Nicene Council, speaking in the person of the Son to the Father, says: "As you begot me perfect God, and made me perfect to assume man, so also, from you, and from my essence, give them the Holy Spirit." ¹⁴⁰ Likewise the same, in the Epistle to Serapion: as in the Son of God our nature, which he assumed from us, remains united to him, so also he himself remains in us through his own Spirit consubstantial with himself, whom he breathes forth eternally from his own essence, and gives. From these things, when it appears clearly that the Holy Spirit is said to be given by the Son not only as a gift of grace, by which he dwells in us, which is from the Son, but most of all because the Holy Spirit himself is from the Son, then, without any doubt, from these and from the places of Holy Scripture brought forward above, it must be held that the truth of faith is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son. Moreover, this same is shown by the second way by which a certain truth is shown to be of the Catholic faith, namely from the authority of the universal tradition of the Church. And first, to this end the Nicene synod seems to have been held, in which, as Athanasius attests in a certain Sermon of the same Council, it is said thus: the mother Church gathered here condemns the originators of this heresy¹⁴¹ that is, the Anomoeans, and confesses the Holy Spirit to be uncreated, true God, consubstantial with the same hypostases of the Father and the Son. ¹⁴² Likewise the same is plain, from the acts of the same synod, in which, among the things the Fathers said through the Bishop Leoncius, it is so stated: The Holy Spirit is found proceeding indeed from the Father, but proper to the Son, and emanating from him. Likewise to the same point the First Synod of Ephesus was held, which was convened against Nestorius, and in whose creed it is said thus, as is found in the chapter On the Holy Spirit, On consecration, di. V.: "Concerning the Holy Spirit the Lord says in the Gospel: 'He will glorify me.' Holding this most rightly, we confess that the one Christ and the Son, not as one in need of glory from another, has obtained glory from the Holy Spirit, who is neither better nor superior to him; but because, doing human works, in demonstration of his deity he used the power of his own Spirit, he is said to be glorified by him, because his own power, or any discipline whatsoever, makes each one illustrious. For although the Spirit is in his own substance and the property is understood in person, according to what the Spirit is, and not the Son, nevertheless he is not alien from him. For he is also called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth; whence he proceeds from him in the same way as from God the Father. All this is contained in the Epistle of blessed Cyril, which the synod itself accepted and approved." ¹⁴³ Likewise to the same point is the Synod of Chalcedon, which in the same way approved, and accepted the Synodal Letters of blessed Cyril, Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, to Nestorius, and to others throughout the East, which most openly profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father. Likewise the same is plain, from the fact that the same Synod of Chalcedon approved and accepted the teaching of Pope Leo, who, writing against the Priscillianists, says: "One is he who begot, another the begotten, another he who proceeds from both." Likewise to the same point is the Fifth universal synod, in which the definition is found thus: "We condemn and anathematize, together with all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore, and his impious writings, and likewise the impious writings by Theodoret against the right faith, and against the twelve chapters of our father blessed Cyril, and of the third holy Synod of Ephesus." Behold, the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril have been received by the universal Church, in which the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Son is especially touched upon; and they have been so received that whoever has held the contrary is anathematized with the other heretics already condemned. Likewise to the same point is that same Fifth Synod, in whose determination it is thus found: "We follow in all things the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Leo, Proculus; and we accept all that they have set forth concerning the right faith and the condemnation of heretics." It is manifest, however, that very many of these holy Fathers expressly held, and in their writings set down as Catholic doctrine, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; and although many of their words have been brought forward above, nevertheless, for the greater light and firmness of the present article, let us adduce here a few testimonies of ten holy forefathers, from the number approved in the aforesaid Fifth Synod. For first Athanasius says in the Epistle to Serapion: "For since the Son, the living Word, is one, one life must be perfect, and full, sanctified and illumined, which is his operation and gift. Because from the Word, which we confess to be from the Father, it shines, gleams, is sent, and is given. Nor does it stand in the way that he says 'shines' or 'gleams', and does not say 'proceeds', because this word 'proceeds' is most common of those things which look to origin; whence whatever is sent forth, flows forth, comes forth, overflows, emanates, shines out, or whatever other way something is judged to arise, must be said to proceed. Which is also most openly clear from the fact that the Greek Doctors use such words about the Son, saying that he is sent by the Father, flows forth, gleams, is, and shines forth; and use both kinds of words about the Holy Spirit. Whence the same Athanasius, in that disputation which he wrote, of the Orthodox and of the Macedonians, says: The Holy Spirit is by nature holy, by nature incorruptible, as the Spirit of God, and flowing or proceeding from him." ¹⁴⁴ Likewise Basil, against Eunomius, says that without any doubt we believe the Son to be the breather and giver of the Holy Spirit. Likewise in the same place he says that the Holy Spirit exists from the Son, and receives from him, and declares to us. ¹⁴⁵ Likewise Hilary, in the second book On the Trinity, which he wrote against Arius and Sabellius, says thus: "We believe the holy Trinity, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one Almighty God, of one essence, of one substance, of one power, creator of all creatures, from whom all things, through whom all things, in whom all things: the Father not from another, the Son begotten of the Father, true God of true God, true light of true light, yet not two lights but one light; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son." ¹⁴⁶ Likewise Gregory the Theologian, in framing a dogma concerning the deity, says: "We confess that the divine nature is unchangeable, but we do not deny the difference which is according to cause and caused. Likewise we understand another difference: one, namely, proximate from the first, that is, the Son from the Father; and another from the proximate, that is, the Holy Spirit from the Son." ¹⁴⁷ Likewise Gregory of Nyssa says: "We hold that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the mediation of the Son." ¹⁴⁸ Likewise Ambrose, in his book On the Trinity, says: "The Holy Spirit is not sent as from a place, nor does he proceed from a place, as if proceeding from the Son." Likewise in the second book On the Holy Spirit he says: "What is from something is from its essence, or from its power. From the essence, indeed, as the Son from the Father, or the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son." ¹⁴⁹ Likewise Augustine, in his book On Faith to Peter, says: "Hold firmly, and in no way doubt, that the same Spirit, who is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son." ¹⁵⁰ Likewise John of Constantinople, in a certain Homily on the Exposition of the Creed, says: "This is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, who divides the gifts as he wills." Likewise in another Homily: "It is to be believed that the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son; we call this Spirit equal to the Father and the Son, and proceeding from the Father and the Son. Believe this, lest evil conversations corrupt good morals." ¹⁵¹ Likewise Cyril, in the book of Treasures, says: "The Holy Spirit, existing from the Son according to nature, and sent from him to the creature, working the renewal of the Church, existing as the term of the holy Trinity"; and he concludes: "If this is so, the Holy Spirit is therefore God from God the Son." Likewise blessed Pope Leo, in his Sermon on the Trinity, which begins "We believe the holy Trinity," says thus: "We believe the holy Trinity, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one Almighty God, of one essence, of one substance, of one power. We believe the Father from himself, not from another, the Son begotten of the Father, but the Holy Spirit proceeding equally from the Father and the Son, and consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son." ¹⁵² Behold the most clear testimonies of ten holy Fathers, both Greek and Latin, whom the Fifth synod held and venerated as of the greatest authority and faith. Likewise to the same point there are several councils, which are read to have been celebrated in the city of Toledo, before the Sixth synod, and which, on account of their authority and piety, were received with great veneration by the universal Church; in which the Fathers have often been found to define that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Whence in the first synod, which is read to have been celebrated by the command of the Roman pontiff, in the time of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, Stilicho being consul, against the Priscillianists, who seem to have arisen in Spain, such a profession of faith is read to have been made by the Fathers: "We believe in one true God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, maker of things visible and invisible, through whom all things were created in heaven and on earth, one God; and that there is one Trinity of the divine substance; the Father is not himself the Son, but has a Son who is not the Father; the Son is not the Father, but the Son of God the Father by nature; the Spirit also is the Paraclete, who is neither the Father himself nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son." Likewise in the third Council it is thus found: "The Holy Spirit is to be confessed by us, and is to be preached, to proceed from the Father and the Son, and to be of one substance with the Father and the Son." Likewise in the same: "Whoever does not believe the Holy Spirit, or shall not have believed that he proceeds from the Father and the Son, and shall not have said that he is co-eternal with the Father and consubstantial with the Son, let him be anathema." Likewise in the seventh synod: "We believe that the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor created, but proceeds from the Father and the Son"; the same is professed by the Fathers in the following synods. The same is clear in the seventh universal synod, which assembled a second time at Nicaea, under Adrian I, which says: "We believe the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father through the Son." Likewise this same is clear from the general Council under Innocent III, in the Church of the Lateran, where there were said to be well nigh five hundred Bishops, and the two chief Patriarchs of the Greeks, namely that of Constantinople and that of Jerusalem; while the others, namely Antioch and Alexandria, were present through procurators. In which synod Innocent III, presiding, in the edition which he made of the Catholic faith, says: the Father from no one, the Son from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit from both; condemning and anathematizing every heresy that exalts itself against that holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which he set forth. Concerning the return of the Greeks to obedience and to the faith of the Apostolic See, in the time of this Roman pontiff, it is found in Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, ch. last. Likewise the same truth is gathered from the Council of Lyons celebrated under the most blessed Father Gregory, in which, as was stated above, with the Greeks present and consenting, a definition was made that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; and all who presumed to assert the opposite were condemned and reprobated, as is found in Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, in VI. Furthermore, and lastly, it is manifest from the definition made in this most sacred Oecumenical synod. But if anyone should ask, since the profession of this truth, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, has been so ancient, and has been preached in the Church of God through so many most holy synods and most illustrious Fathers, why the Greeks were not compelled by the Roman pontiff to insert that addition, "and from the Son," into the Creed, and to read it in the Mass following the Latin custom, it can be answered, firstly, that the Greeks, rendering due subjection and reverence to the Apostolic See, were not thought to differ or to dissent in faith by the fact that they did not read that addition in the Creed. Secondly, because it is not necessary for them to use it, since the Greeks, having a correct and fitting understanding of the Son and the Holy Spirit, might read the Creed without the addition: especially since in various Councils many things have been defined as truths of the Catholic faith which were neither inserted in the Creed nor instituted to be sung in the Mass. It has indeed been judged sufficient if they themselves, even reading without the addition, were not of a contrary opinion, nor thought that those who read the addition had fallen from the truth of the faith. For also after the ancient schism, when a union of both Churches had again been made, the Latins did not compel the Greeks to read the Creed with the addition, or to use other ecclesiastical rites according to their own custom; but only three things are read to have been required of them after the union was made: first, that they make mention of the Roman pontiff in the Canon of the Mass; second, that they consider him the universal judge of all Christians, rendering him reverence according to the ancient custom of the Church; third, that they believe the Roman Church, in ecclesiastical dogmas, to be the mother of the faithful and their teacher, always in sound faith. The other things were permitted to remain in their places. Thirdly, principally, the same truth is shown to be of the Catholic faith by a third way, namely by the definition and doctrine of the Apostolic See, so manifestly apparent in clear light, as much from the things said as from the continuous doctrine of the same Apostolic See, that it is wholly superfluous to bring forward other testimonies for this. BY ALL CHRISTIANS LET IT BE BELIEVED with the heart AND TAKEN UP through the mouth, that is by confession, as necessary and unto salvation. Rom. X.: "With the heart one believes unto justice; by the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Concerning the necessity of professing this truth, Cyril says in the book of Treasures: "By the necessity of our¹⁵³ salvation it is to be confessed that the Holy Spirit exists from the essence of the Son, as existing from him according to nature." ¹⁵⁴ And Epiphanius, in his book On the Trinity: "You yourself are alienated from the grace of God, since you do not receive from the Father the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; you fall short of the Father and the Son." ¹⁵⁵ Likewise Athanasius, in his creed of faith, after saying among other things, "The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding," adds: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless each one believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." ¹⁵⁶ THUS ALL SHOULD PROFESS. That you all say the same thing: 1 Cor. I. ETERNALLY. For in that highest Trinity, which is God, as Augustine says in book XV On the Trinity, there are no intervals of time by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was first born of the Father and afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both. And below: whoever can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, let him understand the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. ¹⁵⁷ Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit: "The Spirit," he says, "has nothing acquired, but has all things eternal, as the Spirit of God, and emanating from him." ¹⁵⁸ And Anastasius says: "The Word is not without the Spirit, just as the mind is not without the word." ¹⁵⁹ Likewise Epiphanius, in a Sermon on the incarnation of the Word: "The Father indeed always was, and the Son always was, and the Holy Spirit always was, from the Father and the Son." ¹⁶⁰; and Jerome, in the Explanation of the faith to Bishops Augustine and Alypius: "We believe also in the Holy Spirit, true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, equal in all things to the Father and the Son, in will, and in power, in eternity, and in substance." ¹⁶¹ HIS OWN ESSENCE. Cyril, in the book of Treasures, shows that, when the Holy Spirit is poured into us, we are conformed to God, since he flows forth from the Father and the Son as having essence from him. ¹⁶² And the same, on John: the Holy Spirit exists as the truest fruit of the very being of the Son himself. ¹⁶³ And Athanasius, in a Sermon of the Nicene Council: "The Holy Spirit, whatever he has, he has from the Word of God." And in the Epistle to Serapion: "The Holy Spirit is co-essential with the Son, from whom he has all whatever he has." ¹⁶⁴ AND ITS BEING. Athanasius to Serapion, speaking in the person of the Son about the Holy Spirit: "From my essence he has that he should be God, and so also to be and to speak." ¹⁶⁵ And Cyril, in book III Against Eunomius: "The Holy Spirit receives being from the Son." ¹⁶⁶ Likewise Hilary, in his Commentaries on the Apostle: "There is nothing double in the Holy Spirit, because¹⁶⁷ the Father and the Son have bestowed being upon him." ¹⁶⁸ And Augustine, in XV On the Trinity: "As birth from the Father bestows substance on the Son without beginning of time and without change of nature, so procession itself from both bestows being on the Holy Spirit without beginning of time and without change of nature." ¹⁶⁹ SUBSISTING. Plainly subsisting, not inhering, not lapsing into another, but subsisting, since it is the divine essence itself. Whence Hilary, in the book On the Trinity: "To be is not to come to God, but subsisting truth and abiding cause, and the natural property of its kind." ¹⁷⁰ FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON ETERNALLY. Extra, On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, ch. I.: "The Father from no one, the Son from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit equally from both, without beginning and without end." The same, in VI., ch. Fidelis. Here, however, the article of definition, of procession from the Father and the Son, can be made manifest in many ways, not only by authorities, as above, but also by reasons. First, thus: the Holy Spirit is called the third person in the Trinity, the Son the second, the Father the first; and the ternary proceeds from unity through¹⁷¹ the binary; therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Whence Gregory of Nyssa: "We hold that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the mediation of the Son." ¹⁷² Second, since among the divine persons there is the highest affinity, each person has an immediate fraternity to another. This would not be so if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son; for then the Son and the Holy Spirit would not have an immediate fraternity, but only through the Father, inasmuch as both were from one. Since therefore the Holy Spirit has an immediate fraternity to the Son (for thus Basil to Amphilochius¹⁷³: the Holy Spirit is connected to the one Father through the one Son), ¹⁷⁴ it must necessarily be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Third, the expression of the begotten to the begetter is more perfect when the begetter communicates to the begotten not only substance but also every act which does not repugn the property of the begotten. This is manifest, wherefore Augustine, in book IX On the Trinity, says: "The Father gives to the Son as much being as he himself has; but the act of breathing does not repugn the Son." It is also plain; therefore the Father communicates this act to him, and consequently the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. ¹⁷⁵ Fourth, the preceding reasoning is confirmed thus: the Son, since he is the express figure of the paternal substance and the unchangeable image of its goodness, necessarily has in himself all the things that are the Father's; otherwise he would not be a perfect and full image of the Father. For Basil says: "For all things whatsoever are of the primitive form are also of the image." ¹⁷⁶ Whence he himself says, John XVI.: "All things whatever the Father has are mine." Therefore it must necessarily be said that the Holy Spirit is breathed by him, as by the Father. Fifth, the Holy Spirit has the same order to the Son as the Son has to the Father, as Saint Athanasius ¹⁷⁷ in the Epistle to Serapion, and Basil to Amphilocius, say. ¹⁷⁸ But the order which the Father has to the Son is the order of nature, or of origin, according to which, as Augustine says, one is not prior to the other, but one, namely the Son, is from the other, namely the Father. ¹⁷⁹ Therefore likewise the order of the Holy Spirit to the Son is the order of origin, by which he proceeds from him. Sixth, the divine persons are not distinguished from one another except according to origin. Whence Gregory of Nyssa says: "The divine persons are distinguished from one another only by the difference of cause and caused." And Damascene, in the first of his Sentences, says the same in ch. XI. Therefore to deny the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Son is to deny his distinction from him. Seventhly, as is already plain from the sayings of the holy Doctors, and as Boethius says in the book On the Trinity: "In divine things relation alone multiplies the Trinity." But if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, there will be no relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son; therefore he will not be distinguished from him in number of person. Whence the great Athanasius, in the book which is entitled Refutation of the Simulation of Meletius and Eusebius, says: "It would be impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the majesty of the Trinity, if he did not proceed from God through the Son." ¹⁸⁰ Eighthly, thus: every love proceeds from a lover, but the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son. (For Augustine says in XV On the Trinity: "The Holy Spirit is neither of the Father alone nor of the Son alone, but of both; and therefore that common love, with which the Father and the Son love each other, he insinuates to us as Charity." And Jerome, on Psalm XIIII.: "The Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son, but the love which the Father has for the Son, and the Son for the Father.") Therefore the Holy Spirit necessarily proceeds from both. ¹⁸¹ Ninthly, the soul is an image of the holy Trinity, according to that of Genesis I.: "Let us make man to our image and likeness," which is to be understood not of the body but as to the mind, according to which, as Augustine says, man is capable of God. But love in the soul, which is said to represent the Holy Spirit, proceeds from knowledge, which represents the Son. (For Augustine says in IX On the Trinity: "Mind, knowledge, and love are three things; for the mind knows itself and loves itself, nor can it love itself unless it also knows itself. Behold, that love proceeds from the mind itself and from its knowledge.") Therefore also in the divine things it must be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. ¹⁸² Tenthly, the Holy Spirit is called the natural image of the Son himself. Whence Basil against Eunomius: "The breathing of his Spirit is the natural image of the Son." ¹⁸³ The same is held by Athanasius, and by Gregory of Caesarea, and by other Greek Doctors, expounding concerning the Holy Spirit that passage of Romans VIII.: "Whom he foreknew to be conformed to the image of his Son," and that of I Cor. XV.: "As we have borne the image of the earthly, so let us bear the image of the heavenly." It is certain, however, that a natural image is derived, or proceeds, from that of which it is the image; for likeness of species or of figure does not suffice for the notion of image, but origin is required for its notion; because, as Augustine says in the book of eighty-three questions, one egg is not the image of another, since it is not expressed from it. ¹⁸⁴ Whence, since the image presupposes order, or origin from another, Augustine says: what is more absurd than for an image to be said to be of itself? ¹⁸⁵ It must nevertheless be considered here that the Holy Spirit, taking the name of image in a broad sense, is called the image of the Son of God, namely, taking image for a perfect likeness expressed by another; but he is not called an image properly and strictly taken, because thus, as Augustine says in VII On the Trinity, the Son alone is the image of the Father. ¹⁸⁶ An image, however, strictly taken, is said to be that which, by reason of its origin and procession, has the being of representing another, or that to whose notion belongs likeness of species, to that from which it proceeds, such as the Son is. For by reason of its procession it has that it is an image, both insofar as it proceeds as Son, because the Son is said from this, that he has the nature of the Father, and insofar as it proceeds as Word, because the Word is a certain likeness in the intellect of the thing understood. But the Holy Spirit, who has the nature of the Father and of the Son most perfectly and most fully, does not have this from the reason of his procession, because he proceeds as love. And therefore, just as he is not called Son although by his procession he receives the nature of the Father, so neither is he properly an image, although he has a perfect likeness. Yet this in no way weakens the argument made; and thus it is plain, by authorities as well as by reasons, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But it is objected against this: no simple thing can be from two, nor can any effect be simpler than its cause, which is impossible; but the Holy Spirit is simple; therefore he cannot be from two, the Father and the Son. Second, either the Father breathes perfectly or he does not. It must not be said that he does not, and if perfectly; therefore another breather is superfluous; but in divine things nothing is superfluous; therefore the Holy Spirit must be said to proceed from the Father alone. Third, according to Dionysius in the chapter On the Divine Names, one must not dare to say or think anything about the supra-substantial hidden divinity beyond what has been divinely expressed to us in the holy oracles; but in Sacred Scripture it is not expressed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but from the Father alone, as is clear from John XV.: "When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. ¹⁸⁷ Fourth, in the acts of the first Synod of Ephesus it is said that, after the Creed of the Nicene Synod had been read through, the holy Synod decreed that it is permitted to no one to put forth, write, or compose any other faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea by the Holy Spirit. The same is found in the acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, after the recitation of the determination of the earlier councils. But in the aforesaid definition of the Council it is not found that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but only that he proceeds from the Father; for it is read in the Creed of the Synod of Constantinople: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father, to be adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son." Therefore in no way ought it to have been added that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nay, those making such an addition seem to be liable to anathema. It is answered by saying that it must be held without any doubt, and as necessary to our salvation, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To the first argument it is answered that the major premise is true when those several things are diverse in essence, and whose operations are diverse, and from such several things one simple thing cannot proceed; but this is not the case here, since Father and Son are one in essence, and by the virtue of one nature they breathe the Holy Spirit by one spiration. To the second it is answered by conceding that the Father breathes the Holy Spirit fully and perfectly; but since every perfection of the Father is communicated to the Son, which does not repugn his property, since nothing distinguishes them except the opposition of relation, it must be believed that just as he communicates to him the perfection of divinity, so too he communicates to him the perfection of spirative power. Hence it is not on account of any imperfection in the Father that the Son breathes, but on account of the perfection of the Son, who has the whole perfection of the Father. Whence that inference does not hold: the Father breathes perfectly, therefore the Son is superfluous; both for the reason already given, and because the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle. Hence, just as this argument does not hold, "the Father creates perfectly, fully, and sufficiently, therefore the Son is superfluous," because they are one principle in creating; whence the great Basil, writing to Amphilochius, ch. VIII, says that the Father is said to create through the Son, which commends neither anything imperfect in the Father's creation nor signifies any weakness in the Son's efficacy, but commends a most united will; so neither does the first argument made hold in the present case. ¹⁸⁸ To the third it is answered, as Saint Thomas answers, that we ought not to say of God what is not found in Sacred Scripture, either in words or in sense. Although it is not expressly found in Sacred Scripture in words that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it is nevertheless found as to sense, as has been shown in many ways above. This must indeed be held as a rule in Sacred Scripture: that what is said of the Father must be understood of the Son as well, even if an exclusive word is added, except only in those cases in which Father and Son are distinguished according to opposed relations; for when the Lord says, Matt. XI.: "No one knows the Son but the Father," it is not excluded that the Son knows himself. So therefore, when it is said "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father," even if it were added "from the Father alone," which however is not added, the Son would not thereby be excluded, because as to this, being the principle of the Holy Spirit, Father and Son are not opposed, but only insofar as this one is Father and this one is Son. But if you ask, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, why did the Son say that he proceeds from the Father? Augustine answers in book XV On the Trinity, and the Master of the Sentences cites it in the last chapter, ch. XIX, dist. I, because he is accustomed to refer to him also what is his own, from whom he himself is, as he says: "My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me." If therefore here is understood his teaching, which yet he does not call his own but the Father's, how much more is it to be understood there that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him, where he says "proceeds from the Father," so as not to say "does not proceed from me." And likewise Augustine, answering Maximinus, and cited by the Master in ch. III., XIII. di.: "But the Spirit is of both, since he proceeds from both; but therefore, when he spoke of him, he said: he proceeds from the Father, because the Father is the author of his procession, who begot such a Son, and by begetting gave him that the Holy Spirit should also proceed from him." ¹⁸⁹ To the fourth it is answered also according to Thomas ¹⁹⁰ that the doctrine of the Catholic faith was sufficiently handed down in the Nicene creed; whence the holy Fathers in the subsequent synods did not intend to add anything, but, on account of the heresies arising, they strove to explain what was implicitly contained. On this it is to be known that in each Council a creed was instituted on account of some error which the Council condemned; whence a following Council did not make another creed than the first, but, by certain additions, explained what was implicitly contained in the first creed, against the heresies arising. Whence in the determination of the Synod of Chalcedon it is said that those who were assembled in the Council of Constantinople handed down the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, not as if there were anything less in the preceding ones who were assembled at Nicaea, but declaring their understanding against the heretics. Since therefore in the time of the ancient councils the error of those saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son had not yet arisen, it was not necessary that this be stated explicitly. But afterwards, when the error of certain persons arose, a Council was assembled in the Western parts, and it was expressed by the authority of the Roman pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were convened and confirmed; whence it was fitting that it be placed in the Creed, not as something added, but as explicitly interpreting what was implicitly contained. Just as if a heresy arose which denied the Holy Spirit to be maker of heaven and earth, it would be necessary that this be stated explicitly, since in the first Creed it is not said except of the Father. TOGETHER. For he does not proceed from the Father earlier or more fully than from the Son: not earlier, because he proceeds from both from eternity; not more fully, because between Father and Son there is no inequality, but one and the same in number is the fullness of truth. Moreover, Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit; but where there is unity there cannot be a distinction of degree of fullness. But against this it seems, first, that Augustine says in XV On the Trinity that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father; if he proceeds principally from the Father, then secondarily from the Son, and so less fully or less perfectly. Second, Jerome says in the Exposition of the Catholic faith that the Holy Spirit is properly from the Father; if he proceeds properly from the Father, and what is proper belongs to one alone, it seems that he proceeds from the Father and not from the Son. If you say that "properly" is not distinguished against what is common¹⁹¹ but against what is improper, then it seems that he proceeds from the Son at least improperly, and so consequently not equally. To the first it is to be said that "principally" is said in two ways: either with respect to what is secondary, and so it imports the order of prior and posterior, and so posits difference; and in this way the Holy Spirit is not said to proceed principally from the Father in the words of Augustine. In another way, "principally" signifies a certain authority of origin, as the Father is said to work through the Son; and it is in this sense that it is taken here, because the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son the Son has from the Father; and thus the authority of procession is originally in the Father, and from the Father; and on this account Augustine says that he proceeds principally from the Father. ¹⁹² Whence the same Augustine, lest anyone rashly conclude from his word in what sense he spoke, explains, adding: "I added 'principally' because it is found that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son; but this the Father gave to him." ¹⁹³ Therefore, since in Augustine's words "principally" does not signify a degree of power but an order of origin, the inference drawn in the opposite sense by no means holds, when it was said: the Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, therefore from the Son secondarily, or less fully. To the second argument it is to be said that what Jerome says, that the Spirit properly proceeds from the Father, was said for no other reason than that for which Augustine says that he proceeds principally from the Father; and therefore it is to be answered in the same way as to the preceding. Whence the Master, in I Sentences, dist. xiii., speaking of this word of Jerome, says thus: "It is not to be understood as though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father earlier or more fully than from the Son, but because the Father has this from himself and not from another, that from him the Holy Spirit is and proceeds; while the Son does not have it from himself but from the Father, that from him the Holy Spirit is and proceeds." ¹⁹⁴ AS FROM ONE PRINCIPLE. Extra, On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, in VI., ch. Fidelis. For Augustine says in VI On the Trinity: "It must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles; but just as the Father and the Son are said, relatively to the creature, to be one Creator and one Lord, so relatively to the Holy Spirit they are one principle; the reason of which, as Saint Thomas says, is that the Father and the Son are one in all things in which relational opposition does not distinguish between them." ¹⁹⁵ Whence, since in this, that they are the principle of the Holy Spirit, they are not opposed relatively, it follows that Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. But it is objected against this: when it is said "Father and Son are one principle," either a unity of nature is designated, not this, because since the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as Father and Son, it would follow that the Holy Spirit would breathe himself together with Father and Son, which is impossible; or a personal unity is designated, not this, because then Father and Son would be one person, which would be heretical; or a unity of property is designated, and not this, because one property cannot belong to two supposits, as it seems; and so it is false that Father and Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit. It is answered to the first, and said, that when Father and Son are said to be one principle of the Holy Spirit, what is designated is not personal unity, as has been well proved, nor merely absolutely the unity of nature, but the unity of spirative property, which is signified by the name "principle" when Father and Son are said to be one principle of the Holy Spirit. Whence, just as Father and Son are said to be one God on account of the unity of nature signified by this name, God, so they are said to be one principle of the Holy Spirit on account of the unity of property signified in this name "principle." And when it is argued that one property cannot belong to two supposits, it is answered that this is true of things distinct in essence; otherwise it is with supposits of which there is one nature, such as are the divine persons. BY ONE SPIRATION. For the unity of the effect, or of what proceeds, is from the unity of the act; the unity of the act from the unity of the power; but one is the person proceeding from Father and Son, and one spirative power is in Father and Son, and thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from them. Moreover, nothing simple proceeds from two unless they are united in one virtue and one operation; for what is from two, inasmuch as two, must necessarily be composite, if it is substantially from them; but the Holy Spirit is simple; therefore Father and Son breathe the Holy Spirit by one virtue and one operation.

Declaring. That what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this understanding: that it is thereby signified that the Son too is the principle of the Holy Spirit, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, but according to the Latins the principle of the substance of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father is also. And since the Father himself, by begetting his only-begotten Son, has given him all the things that are the Father's, except that he is the Father, this very thing: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Son himself has it from the Father eternally, from whom he is also eternally begotten. We define, therefore, that the explanation of those words, "and from the Son," was lawfully and reasonably appended to the Creed for the sake of declaring the truth, and by the necessity then imminent.

Declaring, etc. Here is set out that part in which our most holy lord Eugenius declares what was the understanding of the holy doctors in what they say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. It is divided into three. First, the declaration is set out that the understanding of such doctors is that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit. Second, it is assigned whence the Son has it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him, at AND BECAUSE. Third, it declares and defines that the explanation made in the creed, when it is said, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, was lawful and reasonable, at WE FURTHER DEFINE. DECLARING, moreover, the declaration of doubts pertains to the authority of the Roman pontiff, as in ch. non venit, and in ch. multis, dist. XVII, and in ch. frater, XVI, q. I, and in ch. rogamus, etc., q. I. That the mind and understanding of the holy Doctors, in what they say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, is that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit, is shown first from this: because, as St. Thomas says in the first part, q. XXXVI, art. 3, in all locutions in which someone is said to act through someone, the preposition "through" designates, in the causal¹⁹⁶ term to which it is joined, some cause or principle of that act. But since action is understood as intermediate between the agent or operator and the term of the action or operation, sometimes that causal¹⁹⁷ term to which the preposition "through" is joined is the cause of the action, insofar as it proceeds from the operator, and then it is the cause to the operator or agent that he act. But sometimes the causal¹⁹⁸ term to which the preposition "through" is joined is the cause of the action on the side of that to which the action terminates; but since it is impossible that the Son be a principle of breathing to the Father, it follows necessarily that the understanding of the holy Fathers, in saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, is that the Son together with the Father is one principle of the Holy Spirit, just as that which is said, that all things were produced through the Son, commends the Son as one principle with the Father. Moreover, this same thing is manifest from the fact that the holy Doctors, when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, also say and teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as has been said. ¹⁹⁹ But against this explanation Damascene seems to speak, who says: "We say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and we call him the Spirit of the Father; but from the Son we do not say it." ²⁰⁰ Therefore it seems that the holy Fathers who said that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son had a different understanding from that of those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. To this it is answered that if this doctor had asserted this, he would seem to be opposed to so many and such great doctors, both Greek and Latin, who agree in expressly affirming the contrary, as is clear from what was adduced above; yet, considering his words well, it does not seem to have been his intention to deny that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, since he himself says that the Father is the producer, through the Word, of the radiant Spirit. Therefore, lest he seem to contradict so many holy doctors and even his own words, his words are to be received with a pious intention, expounded, and brought back to the concord of the other Doctors. First, indeed, by saying "from the Son we do not say the Holy Spirit," he means that in his time, or in the time of his fathers, this had not been defined by the Church among the articles of faith; nor does it follow from this that it is not true. For very many things are in themselves true, which nevertheless are not said, as is clear from the definitions of many holy councils. For many things have been declared in the course of time that were not said before, and nonetheless those things were not false, but true. Damascene therefore wishes to show by this not that it was untrue that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but that by custom, from the definition or tradition of the universal Church, it was not said. Second, Damascene says "from the Son we do not say the Holy Spirit" because he thought the preposition "from" did not befit that person before which another person is thought, but befits the person before which none is thought, such as the person of the Father; or because the preposition imports the authority of a principle. For very many of the holy Fathers often both accept and do not accept the same terms in theology according to different understandings, and sometimes in this way and sometimes otherwise. As an example of this is set down immediately for us in the text of the present letter, the name of cause and the name of principle, as shall immediately be said. ACCORDING TO THE GREEKS, CAUSE. There are indeed some Greek Doctors using this name of cause in divine matters, who say that the Father is the cause of the Son, and the Father and the Son are the cause of the Holy Spirit. Whence Athanasius, in words said to have been spoken in the Nicene synod: "Whatever the Son has from the Father, he has as the word has from the heart, the splendor²⁰¹ from the sun, the river from the fountain, and every caused thing from a cause." ²⁰² Likewise Basil: the Holy Spirit, sent by God himself, has him as his cause. ²⁰³ But among the Latins it is not customary to say that the Father is the cause of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, but only the principle or author; and this for three reasons. First, because the Father could not be understood as cause of the Son by way of final, formal, or material cause, but only by way of original cause, which is efficient cause; and such we always find to be of a different essence from that of which they are the cause. And therefore, lest the Son be understood to be of another nature than the Father, the Latins have not customarily said that the Father is the cause of the Son, but have rather used those names which signify origin with a certain substantiality, such as fountain, head, and the like. Second, because among us a cause corresponds to an effect; hence the Latins do not say that the Father is cause of the Son, lest someone understand the Son to have been made; for among the philosophers too God is called the first cause, and every caused thing is comprehended among them under the universe of creatures; therefore, if the Son were said to have a cause, it could be understood that he is comprehended under the universe of creatures. Third, because one ought not readily speak of divine things otherwise than sacred Scripture speaks; but Holy Scripture names the Father the principle of the Son, as John I makes clear: "In the beginning was the Word." But nowhere does it say that the Father is cause or the Son caused. Whence, since cause says more than principle, the Latins have not presumed to say that the Father is cause, or the Son caused. It must nevertheless be considered that the holy Eastern Fathers, using the name of cause and caused in divine matters, did not intend to introduce a diversity of nature, or to make the Son a creature; but by this they wished to show only the origin of the persons, as we do by the name of principle. Whence Gregory of Nyssa says: "In saying cause and caused we do not signify nature by these names; for we do not give these names in place of essence or nature, but we show how they differ from one another, namely that we show the Son is not unbegotten, nor that the Father is from anyone by any generation." ²⁰⁴ And Basil says: "I call the Holy Spirit unbegotten, not having a father, nor a creature, because he is not created, nor does he have God as cause, of whom he is the true Holy Spirit, and from whom he also proceeds." ACCORDING TO THE LATINS, PRINCIPLE. Extra, de summa Trin. et fi. cath., in Sext, ch. Fidelis. It must nevertheless be considered, as St. Thomas says in the Quaestiones de potentia, q. IX, art. 1, that although the Father is called principle of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it does not seem that one should indiscriminately say that the Son is principiated, or the Holy Spirit too, although the Greeks also use this mode of speaking and it could be conceded among those who understand soundly; but we ought to shun those things which seem to import some diminution, lest they be attributed to the Son or the Holy Spirit, in order to avoid the error of the Arians; as Hilary does, who, even if he concedes that the Father is greater than the Son on account of the authority of origin, yet does not concede that the Son is less than the Father, to whom it is granted to be one. And likewise the name "subject to authority" or "principiate" is not to be conceded of the Son, although the name of authority or of principle is conceded of the Father; and so, although the Son is called principle from principle, he is not nevertheless named principiate, as has been said, to avoid every occasion of error. AND BECAUSE it shows that the Son has from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him: ALL THINGS. John XVI: "All things whatever my Father has are mine." Wherefore Augustine, in the book against Maximus the heretic, who said that the Father is more powerful and better than the Son, says: "He who says that all things my Father has are mine has nothing less than the Father. For if he has less in power than the Father, then all things the Father has are not his; if all things the Father has are his, then the Son has as much power as the Father; he is therefore equal to the Father. For he who receives cannot be unequal to him who gave." ²⁰⁵ BY BEGETTING HE GAVE. Extra, de summa Trin. et fi. cath., ch. Damnamus. Not, as Augustine says in book XV of De Trinitate, did he give to one who already existed and did not yet have; but whatever he gave to the Only-begotten Word, he gave by begetting. Likewise the same, against Maximus: "The Father gave by generating, and the Son received by being born." ²⁰⁶ BESIDES, BEING THE FATHER. Cyril, in the second letter to Nestorius²⁰⁷, says: "Moreover, we believe the Son to be like the Father and to have all things equally, except only to beget." The same, in his book On the Trinity: "In the only-begotten Son, he says, like the Father in all things, and equal, except that which the Father is not." ²⁰⁸ THIS SAME. Augustine, book XV of On the Trinity: "Not in vain in this Trinity is the Word called only the Son, nor the gift of God only the Holy Spirit, nor is there anyone by whom the Word has been begotten, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, except God the Father. He added 'principally' because even if the Holy Spirit is found to proceed from the Son; but this too the Father gave to him by begetting. For he so begot him that a common gift would also proceed from him, and the Holy Spirit would be the spirit of both." But it is argued against this, because it seems to follow from this that the Holy Spirit is breathed more fully and more perfectly by the Father, who breathes from himself, than by the Son, who does not have from himself, but from the Father, that he breathe. It is answered, and said, that this does not follow at all, since having from oneself or from another in divine things does not establish a degree of perfection or of fullness. Damascene says in ch. IX of his Sentences: "All things whatever the Father has are the Son's, except begetting and unbegottenness, which signify not a difference of substance nor of dignity, but a mode of existence." Whence, although the Son does not have divinity from himself but from the Father, nevertheless he is perfect God as the Father is. Whence Athanasius: "Equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father according to humanity." ²⁰⁹ THAT EXPLANATION. He rightly says "explanation," because what the Latin Fathers placed in the creed, namely "and the Son," is not properly an addition, but an explanation of what was implicitly contained in sacred Scripture and in the determinations of the ancient holy Councils. But to add, properly, as Albert says in the first part of his Summa, is something foreign which is not set down anew by the intellect within. Of this kind is not what has been shown above, which is implicitly contained in many places of sacred Scripture. ²¹⁰ WITH NECESSITY THEN IMMINENT. This is indeed the cause, as was recalled above, why the holy Fathers in later synods made explications and explanations of certain truths which had not been made in earlier ones, namely on account of the errors arising, which it was necessary to root out. LAWFULLY. "Lawful," as is gathered from the Gloss on 1 Cor. VI and X, is said of what befits someone by power, as in 1 Cor. X: "All things are lawful for me," the Gloss: "power." Or it is said of what is forbidden by no precept of a lord; whence John says to Herod: "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Matt. XIV), because this was forbidden. Taking lawful in the first sense, such an explanation is said to have been made lawfully because of authority; for the Roman pontiff has the power, as prince and teacher of the whole Christian people, to make declarations and explanations of this kind, by whose authority universal councils are convened and confirmed (dist. XVII, throughout; and Extra, De electione, ch. Significasti). For this reason the Roman Church was called by the holy Fathers the mother and teacher of the faith, as in ch. Omnes, dist. XX. But it is argued against this thus: nothing that is forbidden under anathema by the universal Church is subject to the power of any man; but an addition to the promulgated creed is forbidden under anathema by the universal Church. For it says in the acts of the First Synod of Ephesus that, the creed of the Synod of Nicaea having been read through, the holy synod decreed that it is lawful for no one to put forth, write, or compose another faith than that defined by the holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea with the Holy Spirit, and the penalty of anathema is added; and the same is repeated in the acts of the Synod of Chalcedon. Therefore it seems that a new edition of the creed does not pertain to the authority of the Roman pontiff. To this it is answered with St. Thomas, II-II, q. I, art. 10, that the prohibition and sentence of the synod extend to private persons, to whom it does not belong to determine matters of faith. For by such a sentence of a general synod the power to make a new edition of the creed was not taken away from a later synod, not indeed containing another faith, but rather the same faith more fully expounded; for so every synod has observed, as is clear by running through the definitions of the individual synods. For every later synod has expounded certain things beyond what the preceding synod had expounded, on account of the necessity of some error arising. For what greater madness or blindness could be said, than that the Church should have taken from itself the license of dictating what is true, and to others to say it; or that it took from future Councils the power of enacting those things which pertained to the explanation of the faith and the extirpation of errors? Whence this same power pertains to the supreme pontiff, by whose authority a synod is convened and by whose judgment it is confirmed. Whence Anselm, answering the Greeks, says: "We have published a new edition, which we were able to make, because the Roman Church, in the fullness of power in Peter the prince of the Apostles, wherein no sentence of the Fathers nor any prohibition can impose anything, nor restrict, nor prejudice her, nor bind her to anything." ²¹¹ Second, the aforesaid explanation was made lawfully, because it was forbidden to the Roman pontiff by no precept of the Lord; but it is argued against this that it seems to be forbidden by a precept of the Lord, Deut. IV: "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, nor take away from it." And Prov. XXX: "Do not add anything to his words, lest you be reproved and found a liar." Likewise in the last chapter of the Apocalypse blessed John says: "If anyone adds to these things, God will add upon him the plagues written in this book." Since therefore in sacred Scripture, which is the word of God, it is not expressed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it seems to be forbidden to the Roman pontiff by divine law to make additions of this kind. To this it is answered that in these passages of divine Scripture what is forbidden is not the explanation or exposition of divine law in matters pertaining to faith, since this belongs to the office of priests. It is said in Malachi II: "The lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts." For this reason priests are called fathers and teachers of the faithful, as in ch. Quis, dist. XCVI. But this pertains above all to the office of the supreme pontiff, in whose figure is Moses, the prince of the synagogue, who bore the type²¹² of the prince of the Church. It is said in Deut. I: "Moses began to explain the law"; the interlinear Gloss says, as to obscure matters. But in these said passages of Scripture an opposing addition, and an adverse doctrine, is forbidden, as the Gloss clearly shows on that passage of Deut. IV, "You shall not add," where it says that it forbids adding²¹³ to right doctrine anything of perverse intention, and subtracting anything of truth. Whence by the word "other" (aliud) is to be understood not any diverse or distinct thing, but an adverse or contrary one, as Scripture often speaks; as the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. I: "If anyone preaches to you another gospel, that is, a contrary one, let him be anathema." But he says: if anyone adds; for if he said that, he would prejudice his own case, as Augustine says — who desired to come to certain men to whom he wrote, as to the Thessalonians, that he might supply what was lacking to their faith. Therefore in the aforesaid passages it is not any distinct doctrine that is forbidden, but only those that are adverse and contrary to the truth of sacred Scripture. ²¹⁴ But since the doctrine teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is not a doctrine contrary or opposed to sacred Scripture, but most consonant with it, as has been seen above, it is clear that that objection is not to the point. REASONABLY, because such an explanation was made under great necessity; and how great the necessity of this explanation was is shown by the error of those who contended that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. From this the solution of that question of the Greeks becomes manifest, how the Latins dared to make an addition of this kind. Plainly the necessity of the arising error was the cause, which was also the cause for other universal councils to make new explanations of the faith. Likewise, the authority of the Roman Church to convene a synod, in which something would be expressed that is implicitly contained in the articles of faith. But why the Greeks themselves were not summoned, three reasons are assigned by the Latin Doctors. The first, indeed: because it was not necessary that all be summoned, or that all be present at councils. For the Roman Church without them could do this, as teacher and mother of the faith, and could do it even with the Greeks not summoned. Whence St. Thomas, in the Quaestiones de potentia, q. X, art. 4, says that to make an explanation of this kind it is not necessary to convene a universal council when the discords of wars prevent it; as is read in the Sixth Synod, where the Emperor Constantine says that on account of impending wars he could not convene a universal council of bishops; but those who did assemble, following the sentence of Pope Agatho, determined certain doubts arisen concerning the faith, namely that in Christ there are two wills and two actions. Second, they were not summoned, because it would be laborious on account of their distance, and they were not to be troubled, especially since the question had little difficulty. Third, because it was dangerous: it would indeed have been dangerous to lead into doubt what was to be held for certain.

Likewise, that the body of Christ is truly consecrated in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread, and that priests in either must consecrate the Lord's own body, each one, namely according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern.

Here is set down the definition of the second article of the controversy, or difference, between the Latins and the Greeks, which seemed to consist in this: that the Greeks consecrate in leavened bread, but the Latins in unleavened. This difference between them did not exist from the very beginning of the nascent Church, since Christ consecrated in unleavened bread, as the three Evangelists clearly attest: Matthew XXVI, Mark XIV, and Luke XXII. The Apostles too, imitating the teaching of Christ in the primitive Church, celebrated in unleavened bread, as the holy Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the faithful, observes, which by the examination of apostolic tradition is proved never to have erred, as Saint Lucius, Pope and martyr, bears witness. XXVIII, q. I, ch. Ad recta. ²¹⁵ But after no small time had passed, for, as Pope Leo and St. Thomas say in IV Sent., dist. XI, when the heresy of the Ebionites, which had to be detested, was threatening, who held that the legal observances were to be kept along with the Gospel, the holy Fathers, lest they seem to consent to these, wished for a time, by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, that the sacrament be consecrated from leavened bread, ²¹⁶ that heresy finally ceasing, the Roman Church returned to its former custom; but the Greeks wished to keep the custom instituted by the Fathers, and some of them went further, adding that it could not be consecrated except from leavened bread. To prove this they adduced first the testimony of John the Evangelist, ch. XIII, where he says: "Before the feast day of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that his hour had come," and afterward follows: "And when supper was made with his disciples, etc." From this passage they affirmed that the supper in which the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted was made before the day of the Passover, which was the fourteenth moon, when the Jews used leavened bread. Second, from that same John, ch. XVIII, where it is said that the Jews leading Christ did not enter the Praetorium, lest they be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover; from this passage he argued the same thing as before. And because the three Evangelists, as has been said, say that Christ instituted this sacrament on the first day of unleavened bread, some Greeks are said to have broken out into such madness as to say that the three Evangelists wrote falsely and were corrected by John; but both of these are false. The first is clear from the three Evangelists named above, who all agree in saying that Christ consecrated in unleavened bread. Moreover, this is shown even more clearly from what, as blessed John Chrysostom says on Matthew, the Lord showed, that from the beginning of his circumcision to the last day of the Passover he was not contrary to the divine law." It is established that in the law it was commanded, Exod. XII and Deut. XVI, that the paschal lamb be eaten with unleavened bread; therefore it must be confessed without hesitation that Christ did so. ²¹⁷ Likewise the second, namely that the three Evangelists have said falsely, is most erroneous and offensive to Christian ears, nothing more inimical to our Catholic faith than to say that anything false is contained in the canonical Scripture. For by what reasoning would the Evangelists not be believed in this passage, or in any other? For as blessed Augustine says in the Letter to Jerome, and it is held in ch. Si ad Scripturas, dist. IX: "If even officious lies are admitted into the holy Scriptures, nothing of authority will remain in them." ²¹⁸ Nor is it true that John the Evangelist corrected the others, since he was in complete accord with them in all those matters; but rather, they who said such things were deceived through ignorance by the equivocation of the name Pascha. Whence it must be noted that Pascha is taken in four ways. First, it is taken for the paschal lamb, according to Luke XXII: "The day of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover had to be killed." Second, for the day of immolation: Mark XIV: "Now the Passover and the unleavened bread were after two days"; where the Gloss says: "Pascha is called only the day on which the lamb was killed in the evening, the fourteenth moon of the first month." Third, Pascha is taken for the first day of unleavened bread, after the paschal lamb had been immolated on the evening before; and this was the festal and most celebrated day of which blessed John speaks when he says in ch. XIV: "before the feast day of the Passover." For here the feast day of the Passover is called the paschal solemnity, which fell on the fifteenth day of the first month. And on the evening before, the lamb was sacrificed and eaten, namely on the fourteenth moon, with unleavened bread, and then the Lord made supper with his disciples. And this day the other Evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread; but John names it "before the feast day of the Passover." There is indeed a difference between the day of the Passover and the feast day of the Passover. Fourth, Pascha is taken for the paschal foods, that is, for the unleavened breads, which the Jews used through all seven days; and in this way Pascha is taken by John in ch. XVII, because, for the eating of these paschal foods it was required that a person be clean; it is said that they did not enter, lest they be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover, that is, the unleavened breads. And so it is clear that blessed John agrees with the other Evangelists, who say that Christ celebrated in unleavened bread. All these things having been plainly considered, God giving, who makes the minds of the faithful one in will, and the universal holy Ecumenical synod approving, our most holy lord defines and declares that the body of Christ is truly consecrated both in unleavened bread and in leavened bread, provided only that it be of wheat, decreeing that priests consecrate the body of Christ in either, the custom observed by the Church being kept, whether its Eastern or its Western. WHEATEN BREAD. The matter, properly speaking, of the sacrament of the Eucharist, without which the sacrament is not completed, as in the Third Council of Carthage, and it is held in ch. In sacramento, de consecratione, dist. II. Its cause is divine institution; for Christ himself consecrated with this bread. The reason for this institution is assigned in several ways by St. Thomas in the fourth book of the Sentences. First, from its effect, because such bread provides a better nourishment to the body; whence it is fitting to signify the excellence of the grace which is conferred in this sacrament. Second, from the use of the sacrament, because wheaten bread is that which comes more commonly into use; other breads exist only on account of a lack of wheat. Whence also bread, simply so called, is understood as of wheat, as oil is of olives; whence it is fitting for this sacrament, whose use is in eating. Third, from the thing contained, which is Christ, who compares himself to a grain of wheat, John VII: "Unless a grain of wheat falling into the earth, etc." Where the Gloss says: "Since there are many kinds of seed, Christ compared himself to nothing but wheat; whence the custom of the Church began that the body of the Lord be consecrated from this grain alone." Fourth, from the fitting agreement of the truth with the figure. For all the kinds of offered loaves in the law, in which that bread was signified, were of wheat, as is gathered from Exod. XXIX. TRULY. Luke XXII: "This is my body which is given for you"; where Cyril says in the Gloss: "Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Saviour in faith, since he is truth, he does not lie." ²¹⁹ Likewise to the same effect is Augustine, as in ch. Nos autem, de consecratione, dist. II. Likewise Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, § Una. In this passage the error is struck down of those who say that the body of Christ is in the sacrament not in truth, but only in figure, or as in a sign; the first discoverer of this error is said to have been Berengar, who, as in ch. Ego Berengarius, de consecratione, dist. II, was compelled by Pope Nicholas in the synod to revoke the aforesaid error and confess the truth of the faith. CONSECRATED, not indeed by the words of Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, or any other saint, but by the words of the Saviour; de consecratione, dist. II, ch. Quia corpus, where Eusebius of Nicaea says: "The invisible priest, by his word and a secret power, converts the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, saying thus: Take and eat, this is my body." ²²⁰ And Ambrose in his book On the Sacraments; and it is held in ch. De panis, de consecratione, dist. II. Where it is said: "Bread is customary on the altar before the words of the sacraments; where consecration has come, the flesh of Christ is made from bread." But how can what is bread be the body of Christ? And by what words and whose speech is the consecration? Of the Lord Jesus; for through all the rest that is said here, praise is rendered to God, prayer is made for the people, for kings, and for the rest; but where the sacrament is consecrated, the priest no longer uses his own words, but the words of Christ; therefore the word of Christ makes this sacrament. What word of Christ is this? That by which all things were made; the Lord commanded, and heaven and earth and sea were made. See then how operative is the word of Christ? If there is so great a power in the word of the Lord Jesus that what was not begins to be, how much more operative is it, that the things which were should be, and be changed into another? And so what was bread before consecration is the body of Christ after consecration, because the word of Christ changes creation; and thus from bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine put into the chalice with water becomes blood by the consecration of the heavenly word. Thus Ambrose. ²²¹ PRIESTS. To whom alone it pertains to consecrate this sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, as Isidore says in ch. Perlectis, dist. XXV, and Extra, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, ch. I, § Una vero, where it is said that no one can consecrate the sacrament except a priest duly ordained, namely according to the form of the Church; which is against the heresy of the Poor Men of Lyons, who said that any man can consecrate this sacrament. ²²² OUGHT, EACH ONE ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF HIS OWN CHURCH. "Ought" does not express the necessity of the sacrament but its fittingness and propriety; where it must be noted that two things could be considered about the matter of this sacrament, as St. Thomas says in the third part: namely what is necessary, and what is fitting. ²²³ What is necessary is indeed that it be wheaten bread, as has been said, without which the sacrament is not perfected; but it is not of the necessity of the sacrament that it be unleavened or leavened, since in²²⁴ either it can be consecrated by any priest, in whatever Eastern or Western Church it is consecrated; but it is fitting that each one keep the rite of his own Church in the celebration of the sacrament. On this there are diverse customs of Churches. For blessed Gregory says in the Register: "The Church offers unleavened bread, because God took flesh without any admixture, but certain Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed in flesh, just as leaven is mixed with flour;" ²²⁵ whence, just as a priest sins in the Church of the Latins by celebrating with leavened bread (whence Extra, De celebratione missarum, ch. Per litteras, punishes the priest who celebrated the solemnities of the Mass with leavened bread and a wooden cup), so, says St. Thomas, a Greek priest celebrating in the Church of the Greeks with unleavened bread would sin, as if subverting the rite of his own Church. ²²⁶ Especially when, by the consent of the Roman pontiff, such a rite is sustained and continued; for the Roman Church knows, says Pope Nicholas²²⁷, to Michael, of the Emperor, in ch. Scit, dist. XII, that diverse customs according to place and time do no harm to the salvation of believers, provided canonical authority does not stand against them, for whose sake we ought to oppose them. Hence Innocent III, in ch. Fin., Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, says that he wishes to foster and honor the customs and rites of the Greeks, so far as they could be borne²²⁸ with God; as in this place our most holy lord Eugenius has done. Between these two customs, however, the custom of the Latins of celebrating in unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, indeed, on account of the institution of Christ, who instituted this sacrament on the first day of unleavened bread, as has been said. Second, because bread is the proper sacrament of the body of Christ, which was conceived without corruption. Third, because this is more fitting to the sincerity of the faithful, which is required for the use of such a sacrament, according to 1 Cor. V: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us feast in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"; and Gregory Nazianzen: "Let us celebrate the feast of the Lord's Passover in unleavened bread, not in the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and purity." Nevertheless the custom of the Greeks also has some reason and signification, which Gregory touches on, namely that the Word of the Father was united to flesh, and in detestation of the Nazarenes, who mingled legal observances with the Gospel. ²²⁹

Likewise, if those who are truly penitent die in the charity of God before they have made satisfaction with worthy fruits of penance for their sins committed and omitted, their souls are purged after death by purgatorial pains; and that to relieve them from such pains the suffrages of the living faithful avail them, namely the sacrifices of the Masses, prayers, and alms, and other offices of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful, according to the institutions of the Church; and that the souls of those who, after receiving baptism, incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those which, after contracting a stain of sin, whether in their bodies or having been stripped of their bodies, have been purged as said above, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly God himself, Triune and one, as he is, yet one more perfectly than another according to the diversity of merits.

Here is set out the declaration and definition of the truth, at once concerning the four following articles, which concern souls separated from the body; and first concerning the article on Purgatory, namely the point on which there was a difference between the Latins and the Greeks. For the Latins professed Purgatory after this life, as they still profess, in which the souls of those departing in charity, with penance or satisfaction for sins not completed, come to be purged; but the Greeks held that there is no true Purgatory after this life, because although they asserted that such souls, stripped of the body, are held in prison and darkness, and tormented by a confusion of conscience, yet they are purged by no sensible pains. On this controversy, after diligent discussion had, at last the divine Spirit, the author of peace and unity, working, the Greeks consenting, and the whole holy synod approving, the sum of the definition of this article was made: that the souls of those departing in charity, worthy of satisfaction for things committed and omitted, not yet completed, are purged by purgatorial pains after this life. This definition is confirmed, first by the authority of sacred Scripture, second by the testimony of the holy Fathers, whom the universal Church has always venerated, and third by reason. The first is confirmed by authority from the Old Testament, II Macc., where it is said: "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from their sins"; but prayer is not to be made for the dead who are in paradise, because they in no way need it, nor for those who are in hell, because they cannot be absolved or purged from sins. There are therefore some after this life not yet loosed from sins who can be loosed or purged. Second, it is clear from what the Saviour says in the New Testament, Matt. XII: "If anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the age to come"; in which sentence it is manifestly to be understood that certain faults can be remitted or relaxed in the age to come. Whence Augustine, II, On the City of God: "For it would not truly be said that it will not be forgiven them, neither in this age nor in the future, unless there were some to whom, even if not in this manner, it will be forgiven in the future." ²³⁰ Likewise Gregory, as it is held in ch. Qualis, dist. XXV, says thus: "Such as each one is when he departs, such he is represented in judgment; but yet it is to be believed that for certain faults there is a purgatorial fire before judgment, because the truth says: If anyone speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the future." In which sentence it is to be understood that certain faults can be relaxed in this age, and certain in the future. For the sense that follows is clear: what is denied of one is granted of certain others. ²³¹ Third, the truth of the aforesaid definition is also most clearly rendered to us from the words of blessed Paul the Apostle, 1 Cor. III: "Each one's work, of what sort it is, fire will prove; if anyone's work which he built upon remains, he will receive a reward; if anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; yet he himself will be saved, but so as through fire." From these it is manifestly to be understood that after this life there is a purgatorial fire, through which some come to be purged and saved. It is also most evident that this cannot be taken of the damned, for whom no hope of redemption any more is awaited: Job XXXVI, "God does not save the wicked," against the error of Origen, who said that all penalties are purgatorial, contrary to that passage of Matt. XXV, where the Lord is read as about to say to such sinners and demons: "Depart, accursed, into the eternal fire." Moreover, it cannot be understood of those who depart from this life without any sin, since such bear nothing to be purged; therefore it remains that this is to be taken of others to be purged in another life, who nevertheless will be saved. Whence Augustine, treating the aforesaid authority of the Apostle in his Homilies on the Purgatorial Fire, and it is held in dist. XXV, § Criminis, says thus: "There are many who, misreading this passage, deceive themselves with false security, while they believe that even if they build capital crimes on the foundation of Christ, the sins themselves can be purged by the transitory fire, and that they afterwards pass into a perfect life. This understanding, dearest brothers, must be corrected, for they deceive themselves who so flatter themselves with such things; for by that transitory fire of which the Apostle says, Yet he himself will be saved, but so as through fire, not capital but small sins are purged." ²³² Likewise Gregory says in the chapter mentioned above, Qualis, in the same distinction. ²³³ Moreover, there are the testimonies of many holy Fathers, as much Greek as Latin, who, interpreting the aforesaid passage of the Apostle concerning the purgatorial fire, confirm the aforesaid definition. For blessed Gregory of Nyssa, one of those whom the Fifth Synod received reverently in its teaching on the Catholic faith, says in the Dialogue On Consolation, and on the state of souls after death, introducing as speaker the holy Marina²³⁴, sister of blessed Basil and his own, after Basil's death, saying thus: "God does not inflict pains on sinners out of a zeal for hatred or vengeance, for those who have sinned by living badly;" and below: "Just as, when matter mixed with gold is purged by fire, the fire melts not only what is adulterated, but the pure gold too is necessarily melted together with it, and what is pure remains, the adulterated having been consumed; so also, when vices are consumed by the purgatorial fire, it is altogether necessary that the soul joined to them be in the fire, until all inborn adulterous matter and mixture is removed, consumed by the fire." Likewise the same Gregory, in the book which he wrote on those who have fallen asleep, says thus: "As long as the power remains in nature by which evil may be overcome, divine wisdom has devised this counsel: to allow man to be in the things he wished, so that, having tasted the evils he desired, he might learn which things he had exchanged for which, and of his own accord desiringly hasten back to his former blessedness²³⁵; and that to be vicious is unreasonable, shaking off the heavy weight as it were, whether purged in the present life by highest intention and philosophy, or after the departure from this life through the kindling of the purgatorial fire." ²³⁶

Likewise, the great Saint Basil, in the funeral rites, speaking in the person of the dead man, addresses the Saviour thus: I am the image of thine ineffable glory, though I bear the stigmata or the stings of my crimes; have mercy on your handiwork, Lord, and cleanse me with your mercy, and, granting me the fatherland I desire, make me once more a citizen of paradise. ²³⁷ Likewise, to the same effect is the sentence of Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. VII. Likewise, to the same effect is Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, as the blessed Thomas reports, who, on that saying of the Apostle in 1 Cor. III, "if anyone's work," and so on, says: as the Apostle says, he who is to be saved is so saved as if through the purgatorial purging²³⁸ fire, being purged of whatever he has found, as a precaution for his past life, of at least the dust of the feet of earthly sense, in which fire he remains for as long as whatever bulk and earthly affection has clung to him is being purged. ²³⁹ For whom Mother Church prays, and devoutly offers the peaceful gifts, and thus, cleansed by these and going forth pure from there, he stands immaculate before the Lord Sabaoth, with most pure eyes. We pass over the testimonies for the same truth of the holy Fathers of the Western Church, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Pope Leo and Gregory, both because they are common and for the sake of brevity. The aforesaid truth is also declared by the custom of the universal Church, Latin and Greek alike, which prays for the dead and has always been accustomed to pray; whose prayer would surely be useless if Purgatory is not set down after death, for it would be in vain to pray for those who are already in heavenly glory, by whose prayers she is rather to be helped; whence Augustine: it is an injustice to pray for a martyr in the Church, by whose prayers we ought to be commended. ²⁴⁰ Nor for those who are in hell, because, as the same Augustine says, those who have departed from the body without faith working through love, and without its sacraments, have the offices of piety bestowed on them in vain. ²⁴¹ Ch. Placuit, XXIII, q. V, bears on this. Moreover, the aforesaid truth is made most clear by the reason of divine justice, thus: it happens that a man dies in charity, yet with venial fault and with the debt of punishment; since such a one cannot therefore be damned on account of charity, nor saved so long as he is in the uncleanness of fault and the guilt of punishment, neither of which is compatible with blessedness, since both fault and punishment is misery opposed to happiness; therefore of necessity after this life there must be some place in which such a one is purged, through some sensible punishment, without which actual fault is not purged. Now it cannot be said that such a place is paradise or hell, as is manifest; and it is confirmed thus: it happens that some, before death, have not completed the due penance for the sins they have repented of, nor is it consonant with divine justice that they should not afterwards pay that penalty; for those who are overtaken early by death would then be in a better condition than those who complete worthy penance for their sins in this life. Moreover, the negligent, repenting rather than the solicitous, would from their own malice, neglecting repentance, carry off an advantage, which is absurd; therefore they suffer such a penalty after death. It is not in hell, however (as has been said), where men are punished for mortal sins, that such a penalty is paid off, and it is fitting that the glory owed to them be deferred until the day of judgement; it is necessary therefore to posit after this life a Purgatory, in which, before the day of judgement, such men as depart may be absolved by temporal purgatorial penalties. The same is shown likewise by the reason of divine wisdom, which, reaching from end to end, leaves nothing disordered, Wis. VII. But a disordered sin, which has not been punished in this life, would be left so if no place of purgation and punishment were given after this life. Lastly, the same is declared by reasoning drawn from the condition of heavenly glory; for no one can arrive at that heavenly glory with a stain: for it is said, Wis. VII, "Nothing defiled falls into it," and Isa. XXXV, "The defiled shall not pass through it." The soul is defiled by sin, insofar as it is inordinately joined to lower things; from this pollution it is indeed purified in this life, through penance and the other sacraments; but it sometimes happens that such purification in this life is not wholly accomplished, and there remains still a debtor of penalty, either on account of some negligence or preoccupation, or because the debtor of penalty is overtaken by death; nor on this account is he to be wholly excluded from the reward, since these things can happen without mortal sin, through which alone charity is lost. It is necessary therefore that after this life they be purged before they are led into heavenly glory; and the same holds for those who depart with only the stain of venial sin. Nor can it be said that such stains remain to be purged by the fire of the world's conflagration, which goes before the face of judgement, and that they suffer the deferral of glory until the day of judgement; because, since the lack of the vision of God and separation from God, as Chrysostom says, is a greater penalty for those in hell than the torment of fire, it is not probable that such souls, by the common law, suffer so great a penalty for such light sins; and let so much be said for the truth of this article. TRULY, that is, not mockingly, because just as true penance merits pardon, so feigned penance provokes God, de poen. dist. III, §. fine; and Wis. I says, "the spirit of wisdom flees from the feigned"; for he is a mocker and not penitent, says Isidore, book II of On the Supreme Good, de poen. dist. III, §. fine, who still does that for which he repents; true penance, however, as is said in the same place, following the blessed Ambrose, is to lament past things and not to commit again what is to be lamented; the indulgence of true penance is not denied, while to the false indulgence is never extended. ^{242 243} THEY DEPARTED IN THE CHARITY OF GOD, without which there is no remission of sins, because charity covers all offences, Prov. X; and Prima, q. I, Multae. BEFORE THEY BORE WORTHY FRUITS OF PENANCE. Matt. III, "Therefore bring forth fruit worthy of penance"; this is done, as the Gloss has it and Augustine in the Sermon on the Mount, when, according to the quantity and quality of the fault, there is a quality and quantity of penalty by which the satisfaction ought to be imposed. XII, q. I, Fraternitas; and de poen. dist. V, §. i., Falsas. Let the sinner consider, says Augustine, in his book on penance, the quality of the crime: in place, in time, in perseverance, in the variety of the person, with what temptation he did it, and the like. For these are the worthy fruits of penance, which loose the captive soul and keep it in liberty; de poen. dist. V, §. 1. THAT THEY HAVE SATISFIED FOR THE THINGS COMMITTED, in which the error is refuted of those who say that when the fault is forgiven, the whole penalty is also forgiven: for hence, as the blessed Augustine says, the blessed John the Baptist and the Saviour took the beginning of their preaching from penance, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; showing that no one can attain to the kingdoms of heaven unless first, by penance, they have taken care to satisfy God; de poen. dist. I, §. ex his. AND THINGS OMITTED, satisfaction must be made not only for things committed but also for things omitted, because "to him who knows the good and does not do it, it is sin," James IV. Omission, however (as Saint Thomas says in the Secunda secundae), implies the neglect of a good, not of any good, but of a good that is owed; and the good under the aspect of what is owed pertains to justice: to legal justice indeed, if the debt is taken in relation to divine or human law, but to particular justice, insofar as the debt is taken in relation to one's neighbour; whence, in the way in which justice is a particular virtue, omission is a particular sin, distinct from those sins which are opposed to the other virtues. But in the way in which doing good, to which omission is opposed, is a certain particular part of justice distinct from the turning aside from evil, to which transgression is opposed, omission is also distinguished from transgression. PENALTIES: he says the plural, because there are various degrees of penalties in Purgatory, in severity and in duration; divine justice disposes this, which in all things renders the most fitting wages to debtors; for in that purgatorial fire, says Augustine in the Enchiridion, some are purged more slowly, some more quickly, according as they loved those perishing things more or less. Whence the Apostle did not without reason distinguish those three, wood, stubble, and straw, when he spoke of the purgatorial fire, 1 Cor. III; since, as Cyril says there in the Gloss, "The nature of sin is like matter, which is quickly consumed by fire"; and this is the matter which the Apostle says sinners build, those who build upon the foundation of Christ wood, stubble, and straw. PURGATORIAL: for although purgatorial penalties are afflictive, and to such a degree, as Augustine says, that the fire of Purgatory exceeds every penalty anyone has ever suffered in this life, de poen. dist. ult. §. ult., nevertheless, since they are not principally ordained to afflict, as the penalties of hell are, but principally to purge the remnants of sin, therefore they are called purgatorial; and because fire has the greatest purgative force, therefore the penalty of fire alone is most of all attributed to Purgatory: the Apostle says, 1 Cor. III, "The fire will test what sort of work each has done," and Augustine: "he must first be purged by the fire of purgation, who has deferred the fruit of conversion into another age," de poen. dist. ult., near the end. But that fire of Purgatory is bodily and material; since therefore the blessed Gregory says the same, "Some he torments in hell, and the just he purges in Purgatory"; and the blessed Gregory says in the fourth book of the Dialogues that the fire of Gehenna is bodily; I do not doubt it. That the fire of Purgatory is also bodily, beyond the authorities of the saints, reason too confirms, because the penalty ought to correspond to the fault; for it is said, Isa. XXVII, "in measure against measure, when it is cast off, he will judge it";

²⁴⁴ Let the sinner consider... the quality of the crime. ²⁴⁵ They have made satisfaction for what they committed. ²⁴⁶ And omitted. ²⁴⁷ Penalties. ²⁴⁸ The nature of sin is like matter. ²⁴⁹ Purgatorial. ²⁵⁰ He must first be purged by the fire of purgation. ²⁵¹ He torments some in hell. ²⁵² The fire of Purgatory is corporeal. but the soul subjects itself through fault and the body through depraved concupiscence; therefore it is just that it be subjected, in the penalty of a bodily or sensible thing, through suffering. But to the contrary is Damascene, who in the fourth book of his Sentences, at the end, says: "The devil and his demons, and his man, namely Antichrist, and the impious and sinners, will be delivered into eternal fire, not material such as is here among us, but such as God indeed knows"; but every bodily thing is material; therefore it seems that the fire of hell, and consequently of Purgatory, is not bodily. The answer follows Thomas: Damascene does not simply deny that that fire is material, but it is not material in the way that it is among us, because it is distinguished from this fire by certain properties; whence Gregory, in the fifteenth book of the Moralia, expounding that passage of Job XX, "A fire that was not kindled has devoured him," on the difference of the properties of these fires says that this fire, in order to exist, needs bodily fuel, nor can it subsist unless it is kindled and fed; but on the contrary the fire of Gehenna is kindled by no human effort, nor is it nourished by wood, but once created it lasts unquenchable, and needs no kindling, and does not lack heat. But whether, besides the penalty of fire, souls existing in Purgatory suffer another sensible penalty, as do the damned, of whom it is said, Job XXIV, "They shall pass from the waters of snow to excessive heat"; it seems to be said that, just as one may speak in two ways of the place of Purgatory: in one way according to the common law, and in this way the place of Purgatory is said to be a lower place joined to hell; in another way according to a special dispensation, and so the place of Purgatory is not some certain and determined place, whence some are read to have been punished in various places, as is expedient, either for the edification of the living or, for the dead themselves, for the seeking of suffrages, as Gregory reports in the fourth book of the Dialogues; so we may speak of the sensible penalty of Purgatory in two ways, namely according to the common law, and so it seems to be said that that is the only penalty, the penalty of fire, as Saint Thomas says in the second book, dist. XXI, and dist. ult. In the second way we may speak of the penalty of Purgatory, namely according to a special dispensation: thus it is said that sometimes, by a special law, they are purged by a sensible penalty other than the penalty of fire, such as the penalty of cold, or another penalty according to the disposition of the divine will; as is read of a certain man in the legend of all the saints, who was found tormented in ice, for whom, when the blessed Theobald had paid thirty Masses, he is read to have been freed from that penalty; wherefore the present definition, embracing both²⁵³ modes, speaks of purgatorial penalties, and not of a purgatorial penalty. THAT THEY ARE PURGED IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH, against the error of those who say that the purgation of such souls is deferred until the resumption of bodies on the day of judgement, holding as a foundation that souls separated from bodies cannot suffer from bodily fire, nor be subject to any sensible penalties; whose foundation is shown most manifestly to be false and erroneous, first by that of Matt. XXV, "Depart, accursed, into eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels"; since the same reasoning holds for separated souls and for demons. Hence Gregory, in the fourth book of the Dialogues, when the truth is to be said to the reprobate, "Depart into eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels"; if therefore the devil and his angels, though they are incorporeal, are to be tormented by bodily fire, what wonder if souls, before they receive bodies, can feel bodily torments? Second is that of Luke XVI, where the soul of the rich man Epulo cries out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me"; and it follows, "for I am tormented in this flame," which does not seem to be understood

²⁵⁴ On the contrary... eternal fire not material. ²⁵⁵ The answer follows Thomas. ²⁵⁶ On the difference of the properties of these fires. ²⁵⁷ One may speak of the place of Purgatory in two ways. ²⁵⁸ As Saint Thomas says. ²⁵⁹ Whence Gregory, in the fourth book of the Dialogues. except as sensible, since every spiritual substance is either God, or an angel, or a soul, and none of these can be that tormenting flame; nor ought anyone to doubt that bodily fire, by the power of the very principle of all natures, namely God himself, with whom no word is impossible (Luke I), can act upon a spirit separated from the body. But bodily fire, whether in Purgatory or in hell, insofar as it is some bodily thing, has nothing by which it could act upon a spirit; but insofar as it is an instrument of divine justice, the order of justice requires that the soul which by sinning subjected itself to bodily things be subjected to them also in penalty; just as with the sacraments, which act upon the soul, washing away the stains of sins, not insofar as they are bodily things but insofar as they are instruments of divine mercy; for the blessed Augustine says on John, concerning the water of baptism: such is this power of the water, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart. AND THAT FROM THE PENALTIES, here is set forth the declaration and definition concerning the fourth article, on the usefulness of the suffrages of the Church, in which there was also a difference between the Greeks and the Latins; for the Greeks, denying Purgatory after this life in the manner already stated, consequently denied that the suffrages of the Church benefit the faithful departed; on which difference, after most diligent inquiry and examination of the truth had been made, and finally, by the working of him who is the author of peace and unity, all consenting, and the holy Ecumenical Synod approving, such a definition was made, in summary: for the relief of the said penalties, the suffrages and whatever other works of piety of the living faithful can benefit souls existing in Purgatory. The truth of this definition is evident from 2 Macc. XII: "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins." Likewise, secondly, by the authority of the universal Church, which is accustomed to pray for the dead; of which the blessed Augustine, in the book On Burial, to Paulinus, speaks thus: "We read thus in the books of the Maccabees of a sacrifice offered for the dead; but even if it were never read at all in the ancient Scriptures, the authority of the universal Church, which shines forth in this custom, is no small one, where in the prayers of the priest, which are poured out to the Lord God at his altar, the commemoration of the dead has its place." Thirdly, the blessed Dionysius is a witness to this truth, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. VII, where, speaking of the prayer which the hierarch offers over him who is laid to sleep, he says thus: "He prays indeed to the divine goodness that whatever he who sleeps has sinned through human frailty be forgiven him, and that he be placed in the light and region of the living, in the borders of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, where pain, sorrow, and groaning flee away." Likewise to the same effect is Epiphanius, against the Arrian blaspheming and saying, among other things, that the prayers of the living do not benefit the dead; indeed, as to the fact that we recite the names of the dead, what more devoted thing ought to have been done? What more fitting and more wonderful than this? — than if we who are here believe that those who have died live, and that their substance has not perished, but that they are and live with God? For the most honourable preaching teaches this, and dictates that there is hope for those who pray for the brethren, as for those set in a pilgrimage; and the prayer that is made for them benefits them, although it does not cut away all faults. For often, while we are in the world, we sin willingly and unwillingly, so that a greater perfection may be expressed; for we both keep the memory of the just and we pray for sinners; for sinners indeed we implore the divine mercy; and below he says thus: "Let us come back again to the consequence of this matter, and let us say that the Church necessarily does this, as from the fathers."

²⁶⁰ For the blessed Augustine says, on John. ²⁶¹ On the authority of the universal Church. ²⁶² Likewise, thirdly, a witness of this truth. ²⁶³ Likewise to the same effect is Epiphanius. ²⁶⁴ On the usefulness of the suffrages of the Church. has received it handed down; likewise to the same effect is Gregory of Nyssa in his Sermon on the Dead; likewise John Damascene in a certain Sermon on suffrages. But I pass over the testimonies of the holy fathers of the Western Church, since they are as it were countless and well known; concerning them see the fourth book of the Sentences, dist. XLV, and in the body of the Decretum above all XIII, q. II. Moreover the truth of this definition is shown to be most fitting by reason: for the love of charity among the faithful must be believed to avail more with God than civil love avails among fellow citizens; but civil love among men avails so much that out of love one can free another before a judge from a debt of punishment, whether by entreating or by making satisfaction; therefore the love of charity among the faithful avails so much that before God one can free another, whether wholly or in part, from a debt of punishment, and this by entreating or by making satisfaction. TO PROFIT THEM, namely those dying in charity: for as Augustine says, those who depart from the body without faith working through love, and without its sacraments, have such offices bestowed on them by their own in vain. OF MASSES, namely SACRIFICES, PRAYERS AND ALMS: these three kinds of suffrages, by which the souls of the departed are believed to be relieved through the devotion of their living relatives, Augustine sets out in his book On the Care to Be Taken for the Dead, as in ch. Non existimemus, XIII, q. II. To these blessed Gregory adds a fourth, namely fasting: for he says, as in ch. Animae, in that cause and question, that the souls of the departed are released in four ways — either by the offerings of priests, or by the prayers of the saints, or by the alms of the distinguished, or by the fasts of kinsmen; but among these the chief suffrage is the sacrifice of the altar, for nothing can be greater among sacrifices than the body and blood of Christ, nor can any oblation be more potent than this, but it excels them all, as in ch. Nihil, De cons., dist. II. AND OTHER OFFICES OF PIETY. Not only those four, which are reckoned as the more principal aids of the dead, profit the departed, but whatever other good things are customarily done out of charity by the faithful for other faithful must be believed to profit them, as St. Thomas says in his fourth book, dist. XLV, according to what we profess in the Creed, the communion of saints, which charity itself makes — De cons., dist. IV, in ch. Ecce charitas; and the Prophet says: 'I am a partaker of all them that fear thee'; where the Gloss says: for a member shares in the whole body. AND THE SOULS OF THOSE: here is set out the declaration and definition of the truth of the fifth article of the controversy between the Greeks and the Latins concerning the state of the souls of the saints before the day of judgement. For the Greeks said that the souls of the just do not receive their final and proper reward before the day of judgement, but are meanwhile in certain fitting places, awaiting the final retribution to be received on the day of judgement; the Latins, however, said, as they still say, that the souls of the just which, departing from this world, brought nothing to be purged with them, or which, having been purged in Purgatory of the things they brought to be purged, are at once received into heaven, receiving their final and proper reward from God. On this article, after a sufficient examination of the truth, through the working of him who makes the like-minded to dwell in a house, by the unanimous consent of Greeks and Latins, with this whole holy Ecumenical synod approving, it was defined that the souls of the saints are received into heaven before the day of judgement; hence the souls of the just who depart from this world without any fault or liability to punishment — of which sort are those who after baptism received have incurred no stain of sin whatever, and those who after contracting the stain of sin have made full satisfaction for their sins

²⁶⁵ Likewise to the same effect is Gregory of Nyssa. ²⁶⁶ Likewise John Damascene. ²⁶⁷ Who without faith working through love. ²⁶⁸ These three kinds of suffrages. ²⁶⁹ To which the blessed Gregory adds a fourth. ²⁷⁰ And other offices of piety. ²⁷¹ The state of the souls of the saints before the day of judgement. who have fulfilled it in this world, and whose souls, purged in Purgatory in the manner mentioned above of the incurred stains of sins, are at once received into heaven, receiving from the Lord their reward of blessedness. The definition of the truth of this article is shown most clearly as to its several parts. And first as to that part in which it is said that before the day of judgement the souls of the saints are received into heaven, it is shown most manifestly from all those places of holy Scripture in which the discourse concerns the Ascension of the Lord into heaven, as is clear from Ps. LXVII: 'Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive.' Likewise from Mic. II: 'He shall go up that shall open the way before them, and the King shall pass before them, and the Lord at their head.' Likewise from the Apostle, Eph. IV: 'Christ, ascending on high, led captivity captive.' In these places it is held not only that Christ ascended into heaven, but also that he led over with him into heaven the crowd of the saints which had lain captive under the power of demons in Limbo; hence the Apostle, Col. II, after describing how Christ by his death despoiled the principalities and powers of the demons by drawing the fathers out of Limbo, added: 'he led them confidently' — namely his own, says the Gloss — to heaven; hence the Church also sings of the martyrs: 'The souls of the saints rejoice in heaven, who have followed the footsteps of Christ.' Secondly, the truth of the aforesaid definition, as to that part in which it is said that the souls of the just of whom the definition speaks — namely from the Ascension of Christ, in which Christ introduced us into possession of the heavenly kingdom — are received into heaven at once when they are loosed from bodies, is also shown most clearly: first from the Apostle, 2 Cor. V: 'We know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, but eternal in heaven.' By this it is manifestly given to understand that when the body is dissolved the soul of the just is at once brought to the eternal and heavenly mansion. But if anyone would contradict this, saying that the Apostle did not say that as soon as the body is dissolved we have the eternal house in heaven in reality, but only in hope, to have it in reality at last, St. Thomas argues that this is manifestly against the Apostle's intention: for even while we live here we shall have the heavenly mansion according to the divine predestination, and we already have it in hope, according to Rom. VIII: 'For we are saved by hope.' In vain, therefore, did he add: 'if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved' — for it would have sufficed to say: 'we know that we have a building of God, eternal in heaven.' Likewise, secondly, the same truth appears from the same Apostle, Phil. I, where he says: 'Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.' But Christ is in heaven — the Apostle therefore hoped to arrive in heaven at once after the dissolution of the body. Hence Gregory, in the fourth book of the Dialogues, proposing and resolving this question — whether souls of the just are received into heaven before the resurrection of bodies — says thus: 'It is clearer than light that the souls of the perfect just, as soon as they leave the regions of the flesh, are received in the heavenly seats.' This truth itself also bears witness, saying: 'Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together.' For where our Redeemer himself is, there without doubt the souls of the just are also gathered; and Paul desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Whoever, therefore, does not doubt that Christ is in heaven does not deny that the soul of Paul is in heaven either. Thirdly, the truth of the aforesaid definition, as to its third particle — namely that such souls of the just, as soon as they are loosed from bodies, receive from God the final reward of blessedness.

²⁷² But if anyone would contradict... ²⁷³ The souls of the just, as soon as they leave the regions of the flesh. This too will be shown most clearly by the authority of holy Scripture, first from Isa. X, where the Prophet, speaking of the first coming of the Saviour, says: 'Behold, the Lord God shall come with strength,' and there follows: 'And his reward is before him' — the interlinear Gloss: 'the retribution of all' — which the Doctors affirm was said for this reason, that in his coming, the gate of the heavenly kingdom having been opened to us through his Passion, the saints departing from this life at once attain the retribution of reward. Secondly from Luke XXIII, where the Lord says to the thief: 'This day thou shalt be with me in paradise' — where paradise, according to Christ's mind, is to be understood neither as the earthly paradise nor as the heavenly place of the blessed, but as the very fruition of the divinity, as St. Thomas says in the third book of the Sentences, dist. XXII — which the thief obtained that very day according to Christ's promise. Concerning him Chrysostom speaks thus in his first Homily on the Cross and the Thief: 'Whence such blessedness to the thief? What did he do, that after the cross he should merit? Thou hast seen thief and thief: both hang on the cross; both of thievish life, alike was the conduct of each; but the mind was not one in both, nor do both persevere in one disposition, nor is a like end judged in them; but one merited the beatitude of heaven by inheritance, the other was sent to Gehenna for punishment.' There are also very many irrefragable reasons for the truth of this article, and above all St. Thomas, in his work Against the Gentiles, ch. XCI: in this life is the state of meriting or demerit; hence it is compared to warfare and to the days of a hireling. Hence Job VII says: 'The life of man upon earth is warfare, and his days are as the days of a hireling.' But after the state of warfare and the hireling's labour, reward or punishment is at once due to those who strive well or ill. Hence Lev. XIX says: 'The wages of the hireling shall not remain with thee until morning.' The Lord also says, Joel last: 'I will quickly and speedily return to you recompense upon your own head.' Therefore at once after death souls attain either reward or punishment. Likewise: by the same providence of God rewards and punishments are due to rational creatures by which the perfections due to them are applied to natural things. But in natural things it holds that each at once receives the perfection of which it is capable, unless there is an impediment on the part of the agent or of the recipient; since therefore souls, as soon as they are separated from the body, are capable of glory and of punishment, they receive each at once. That by no reasoning can it be established that the reward of the good or the punishment of the evil is deferred until the resumption of bodies is shown thus: according to the order of fault and merit there is fittingly an order in punishment or reward, for according to the order of causes there is an order in effects; but merit and fault belong to the body only through the soul, for nothing has the character of merit or demerit except insofar as it is voluntary. For in the will, as Jerome says to Rufinus, is the cause of vices and of virtues, in ch. Nasci, dist. LVI. Therefore both reward and punishment are fittingly derived from the soul to the body, but do not belong to the soul on account of the body. There is therefore no reason why the resurrection of bodies should be awaited in the punishing or rewarding of souls, when it seems more fitting that souls, in which fault or merit was first, should also be rewarded or punished first. Nor can it be said that a separated soul is not capable of blessedness: for the ultimate blessedness of the rational soul consists, as will be held in the following article, in the vision of the divine essence. But it is manifest that for seeing the divine essence the soul does not need the body: for the soul needs the body only on account of phantasms, in which it beholds the intelligible truth; but it is most clear that the divine essence cannot be seen through phantasms.

²⁷⁴ On the thief... one, by inheritance, merited the beatitude of heaven. ²⁷⁵ In this life is the state of meriting or demerit. ²⁷⁶ In the will... is the cause of virtues and vices. for since the divine essence is something uncircumscribed and infinite, containing in itself surpassingly whatever can be understood by a created intellect, it can be represented by no created species or likeness. And therefore Augustine says that the Lord escapes every form of our intellect. A soul separated from the body is therefore capable of ultimate blessedness. AFTER BAPTISM RECEIVED, through which there comes about the remission not only of original but also of voluntary sins, as Augustine says in On the Baptism of Little Children, in ch. Regenerare, De cons., dist. IV. And this is what the Lord says through Ezekiel the prophet, ch. XV: 'I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filth.' THEY HAVE INCURRED NO STAIN OF SIN WHATEVER: to such, indeed, the approach to the kingdom of heaven lies immediately open. Hence on Luke III, 'Heaven was opened,' the venerable Bede says that here the power of baptism is shown, from which, when anyone comes forth, the gate of the heavenly kingdom is opened to him. And Ambrose, in his book On the Sacraments, as in ch. Per aquam, De cons., dist. X, says: 'Through the water of baptism there is a passage from earthly to heavenly things.' THEY HAVE BEEN PURGED: a twofold purgation of souls from sins is here distinguished. One takes place in the body, and it takes place through penance and baptism, as John Chrysostom says, and as is found in ch. Non potest, De cons., dist. III. Likewise it takes place through the other sacraments, as in ch. Sciscitantibus, dist. II. Likewise it takes place through works of virtue and piety, as Gregory says in ch. Si quaelibet, XXII, q. II; and Prov. XV says: 'Sins are purged by faith and mercy.' Likewise it takes place through the endurance of adversities and tribulations — Mal. III: 'He shall sit as a refiner's fire, and shall purge the sons of Levi' — and it is adduced in ch. Purgabit, dist. L. Another purgation of souls after separation from bodies, through the fire of Purgatory, is distinguished, which was treated above. TO BE RECEIVED AT ONCE INTO HEAVEN. Against this seems to stand that text of Matt. XXV, where Christ is read as about to say to the just: 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,' and as about to say to the evil: 'Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.' It seems, therefore, that before the day of judgement neither are the just received into heaven nor the damned into hell at once. For he speaks in the future tense: 'These shall go into everlasting punishment, but the just into life everlasting.' To this it is answered — and to all like authorities which seem to say that at the final judgement the good will receive the reward or crown of glory, and the evil the torment of damnation — that authorities of this kind are not to be understood thus: that before the day of judgement neither do the just fly up to heaven nor attain the glory of blessedness; nor are they to be so taken that the souls of the evil neither descend into hell before the day of judgement nor suffer the punishments of damnation — since, as is clear from what was said above, both holy Scripture and the testimonies of the holy fathers and reason itself manifestly testify to the opposite. But holy Scripture speaks in words of the future tense, both of the rewarding of the good and of the damnation of the evil, for a twofold cause: first by reason of the general retribution of all, which on the day of the universal judgement will at once be made known to all together, through the universal separation of the good from the evil then to take place. For although privately each man before judgement has certain knowledge of his own damnation or reward, yet the damnation or reward of all is not made known to all, but this will be at the universal judgement. Secondly by reason of the integral and consummate blessedness which the just will then receive, and of the consummate damnation which the evil will then receive. For when bodies are resumed, both blessedness in the saints and the punishment of damnation in the evil will be extended to bodies.

²⁷⁷ After baptism has been received. ²⁷⁸ They incurred no stain of sin whatever. ²⁷⁹ To such, verily, the way into the kingdom of heaven lies immediately open. ²⁸⁰ A twofold purgation of souls from sins. ²⁸¹ It is also effected by the endurance of adversities. and because in the resumption of bodies, which will take place on the day of judgement, there is given to man in this way what is integral and consummate — whether to rejoice in reward or to be tormented in damnation — therefore to that last day of the general judgement the retribution both of the good and of the evil is attributed. And this is the reasoning of blessed Gregory, who in the fourth book of the Dialogues proposes and resolves this doubt. 'If,' he says, 'the souls of the saints are now in heaven, what is it that on the day of judgement they will receive by way of distribution for their justice?' He answers: 'What will surely increase for them at the judgement is that now they enjoy blessedness of souls alone, but afterwards also of bodies, so that they may rejoice even in the flesh in which they endured pains and torments for the Lord. For on account of their twofold glory it is written: In their land they shall possess double things.' Hence even before the day of resurrection it is written of the souls of the saints: 'White robes were given to each of them'; and it was said to them: 'that they should rest for a little time, until the number of their fellow servants and brethren should be fulfilled' — who therefore, having now received one each, will have two robes at the judgement, for now they will rejoice in the glory of souls alone, but then in the glory of souls and bodies together. AND TO BEHOLD CLEARLY GOD HIMSELF, TRIUNE AND ONE, AS HE IS. Here follows the declaration or definition of the sixth article of the controversy between the Greeks and the Latins concerning the vision which the souls of the saints, freed from bodies, have of God before the day of judgement. The Greeks, denying that the souls of the just, freed from bodies, attain their final blessedness before the day of judgement, consequently said that before the day of judgement they do not clearly see God himself, in whose clear and open vision eternal life consists. John XVII: 'This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' The Latins, on the contrary — just as they affirmed that the souls of those just, upon their release from bodies, are at once received into heaven — affirmed that to them is given to enjoy the vision of the divinity. On this controversy, after a mature and diligent discussion, at last, through the working of God, by the concordant will and assent of all, both Greeks and Latins, such a definition was made, embracing in sum two parts. First, that the souls of the just, of whom the present article treats, as soon as they are freed from bodies, clearly see, even as he is, the true God, triune and one. Secondly, that some see more perfectly than others, according to the diversity of their merits. The truth of this definition is shown most clearly: first from what was said just above in the preceding article. For since from what was adduced there it is manifest that the souls of the just, immediately upon being freed from bodies, attain the reward or recompense of blessedness, and blessedness itself consists in the clear and open vision of God — according to John XIV: 'He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him,' where Augustine's Gloss says: 'this vision shall be the reward of faith' — it is most clear that the souls of the just after separation from bodies see God with a clear and open vision. TO BEHOLD CLEARLY, that is, not through a mirror in enigma, nor through images or any likenesses by which he is seen in this life, but face to face. For after this life, as Augustine says in his book of Eighty-Four Questions, all veils are removed — that is, likenesses of the creature — that we may see God face to face. 1 Cor. XIII: 'We see now through a mirror in enigma' — that is, obscurely — 'but then face to face'; the Gloss: manifestly, after the likeness of those who behold one another with face direct. GOD HIMSELF, TRIUNE AND ONE — against the error of those who say that blessedness, glory or felicity

²⁸² If now the souls of the saints are in heaven... ²⁸³ The vision of God before the day of judgement. ²⁸⁴ He who loves me will be loved by my Father. ²⁸⁵ After this life... all veils are removed. do not, as the ultimate good of men, consist in the vision of God himself, but in some other entity really distinct from the very essence of divinity, which the Greeks call energy, or act, or effulgence. Against these and all who speak thus, besides very many arguments mentioned a little above, there is that text of Jer. IX, where in the person of God it is said: 'Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me.' Behold: the ultimate glory of man is said to consist in the vision of God. Reason also demonstrates this: the perfect blessedness of man does not consist in that which is the perfection of the intellect by participation of something, but in that which is such by essence. But it is manifest that each thing is the perfection of a power only insofar as the character of that power's object belongs to it; but the proper object of the intellect is the true; whatever, therefore, when contemplated, has only a participated truth does not render the intellect perfect with ultimate perfection, since the disposition of things in being is the same as in truth, as is said in Metaphysics II. But since God alone, triune and one, is truth by essence, the contemplation or vision of him alone renders man perfectly blessed. Moreover, blessedness is a perfect good which wholly quiets the appetite; otherwise it would not be the ultimate end, if something still remained to be desired. Hence Augustine says in his book On the Morals of the Church that the blessed life is when that which is best is possessed. But the object of the will is the universal good, as the object of the intellect is the universal true; therefore nothing can quiet the will of man but the universal good, which is found in God alone, triune and one, according to the Prophet: 'who satisfieth thy desire with good things.' Therefore in God alone himself, triune and one, consists the true blessedness of man. Hence Augustine, in his book of Eighty-Three Questions: 'The blessed life is the love and perfect knowledge of the Trinity; for it is the only good, and ineffable joy, serene gladness, pure, perfect and infinite delight.' AS HE IS, that is, by essence. 1 John III: 'When he shall appear we shall be like to him, for we shall see him as he is'; the Gloss: not through a mirror, as now. In this place is overthrown the error of those who say that God cannot be seen by a created intellect in his essence, but is seen in theoriae and theophanies: by theophanies they mean lights scattered in creatures, after the manner of a vestige or image; by theoriae, certain intellectual lights or effulgences descending from God and manifesting, insofar as possible, the uncircumscribed light which is God — which is shown by manifest reason to be erroneous: for since the ultimate blessedness of man consists in his highest operation, which is the operation of the intellect, according to the Philosopher in Ethics I, since it is that which is highest in the rational nature, if a created intellect can never see the essence of God, it will either never obtain blessedness, or its blessedness consists in something other than God — both of which are foreign to the faith. Moreover, since the ultimate end of man, of the human condition, is felicity itself, as is clear from what was said, that vision of God alone is essentially felicity itself, by which, once possessed, nothing else remains to be desired or sought; but only such a knowledge or vision of God by essence is of this kind, since only such perfectly quiets the desire of the created intellect — inasmuch as through it the created intellect arrives at the essence of the first efficient, exemplary and final cause of all things, which is God. Hence Augustine, in book VII of the Trinity, says: 'Nor shall we seek anything else when we have arrived at the contemplation of him.' And the Prophet says: 'I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear,' Ps. XVI. Therefore it must necessarily be said that God is seen by the blessed in his essence.

²⁸⁶ The blessed life is when that which is best is possessed. ²⁸⁷ The blessed life is the love and perfect knowledge of the Trinity. ²⁸⁸ Since it is that which is highest in the rational nature. ²⁸⁹ Nor shall we seek anything else when we have arrived at the contemplation of him. But it cannot be said that such a vision of God by essence is not possible to a created intellect. First, because a natural desire — which it is impossible should be in vain — of the created intelligence is to see God by essence, since the desire is in all men of knowing the causes of what they see, and above all the first cause; since, according to the Philosopher's dictum, we judge that we know a thing when we know its first cause. Hence Aristotle and Averroes professed that the intelligible which every man desires by nature is the divine intellect, because as it is the cause of every thing, so it is the light making intelligible whatever is understood. Secondly, because the desire of the saints — which it is impossible should exist except for possible things, since only such is reasonable — is the desire of seeing God by essence. For the holy man Moses says, Exod. XXXIII: 'Show me thy glory.' And the holy prophet David says in the Psalm: 'Show us thy face, and we shall be saved.' Thirdly, because the vision of God by essence is promised to the saints in the divine Scriptures: 1 Cor. XIII: 'We see now through a mirror, then face to face'; and John XIV: 'He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.' But against the declaration and definition aforesaid an objection is raised from John I: 'No man hath seen God at any time' — which the blessed Chrysostom expounding says: 'Not even the heavenly essences themselves — the Cherubim, I say, and the Seraphim — have ever been able to see God as he is.' It is answered that John's authority can be expounded in three ways, as is clear through Augustine in his book On Seeing God: in one way, so as to exclude corporeal vision, for no one has seen or will see God in his essence. Hence Jerome: 'Not only the divinity of the Father, but neither that of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit can eyes of flesh behold, but eyes of the mind, of which it is said: Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.' In another way, so as to exclude intellectual vision by essence in those who live in this mortal flesh, according to Num. XXXII: 'No man shall see me and live'; the Gloss: as long as life is lived here mortally, God can be seen through certain images, but through the very form of his nature he cannot. In another way, so as to exclude the vision of comprehension from a created intellect, according to Jer. XXXII: 'O most mighty, great and powerful one, the Lord of hosts is thy name; great in counsel and incomprehensible in thought.' And Damascene, in his first book: 'Since the substance of God is incomprehensible, there is no doubt for those who believe the divine Scriptures.' And it is of this comprehensive vision that blessed Chrysostom speaks in the adduced authority, when he says: 'That not even the heavenly essences have ever been able to see God as he is.' And that he speaks of the comprehensive vision he himself declares from what follows — whence he adds: 'Knowledge,' the Evangelist here means a most certain consideration, 'and a comprehension as great as the Father has of the Son.' And to this understanding must be resolved all like authorities of the holy fathers which seem to say that God is invisible, and the like. YET BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF MERITS, ONE MORE PERFECTLY THAN ANOTHER. This is the second part of the article. For in the heavenly kingdom there are many differences of rewards. Hence the Lord says, John XIV: 'In my Father's house there are many mansions'; the interlinear Gloss: Augustine: diverse rewards of merits. By this is overthrown the error of those who say that in the future life all rewards and punishments are equal. For since divine justice requires, for keeping equality in things, that punishments be rendered for faults, if there is a degree in virtuous acts and in sins themselves, there must also be a degree of rewards and of punishments; otherwise equality would not be preserved if:

²⁹⁰ What is intelligible, which every man naturally desires. ²⁹¹ Nor the heavenly essences... ²⁹² That authority of John can be expounded in three ways. ²⁹³ Not only the divinity of the Father... ²⁹⁴ Since the substance of God is incomprehensible. ²⁹⁵ That not even the heavenly essences... ²⁹⁶ The different rewards of merits. greater punishment were not rendered to the one sinning more, or greater reward to the one acting better — against that text: 'For with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you,' Matt. VII. There are therefore many differences of rewards among the blessed. Hence the Apostle, 1 Cor. XV: 'One is the glory of the sun, and another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars; for star differeth from star in glory; so also is the resurrection of the dead.' The Gloss: as, though one in nature, they are of diverse brightness, so men, though of one kind, will be of unlike glory. But it is to be considered that this difference of degrees of vision in the saints is not to be taken on the part of the divine essence, which is most simple, from whose vision all the saints are made blessed, but on the part of the light of glory by which the blessed intellect is raised to see the divine essence — as in ch. Ad nostrum, Extra, De haereticis, in the Clementines — so that the intellect participating more in the light of glory will see God more perfectly; but he will participate more in the light of glory who has more of brightness, which, the more perfect it is in anyone, renders its possessor so much the more capacious of the divine brightness. Matt. XXV: 'He gave to each according to his own virtue.' But this passage seems to contradict what was said a little before, that the saints see God in glory as he is. For since God is in one way, it seems that he is seen by all in one way; therefore not more perfectly by one than by another. It is answered that when it is said that we shall see God as he is, this adverb 'as' determines the manner of vision on the part of the thing seen, so that the sense is: we shall see him to be as he is, for we shall see his very being, which is his essence. But it does not determine the manner of vision on the part of the seer, so that the sense should be that the manner of seeing of each saint will be as perfect as the manner of being of God himself is perfect — for this would be to comprehend God, which is impossible. And so it is clear that the argument does not hold: for although God is in one way, and the divine being seen by all is one and the same, most simple and wholly unchangeable, nevertheless in this kind of vision there are various degrees of perfection.

The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin, or with original sin alone, descend at once into hell, to be punished, however, with unequal penalties.

Here the declaration and definition of the seventh article of the controversy between the Greeks and the Latins concerning the punishments of the damned is set forth. The Latins said, as they still say, that the souls of those men at once, when they are loosed from their bodies, go down into hell and are subjected to everlasting fires²⁹⁷; the Greeks, however, asserted that before the resurrection of the bodies, and consequently before the day of judgment, they suffer no such sensible torments, but are tormented only by the fear of future torments. On this matter, after mature and serious discussion, at last, by the blessing of almighty God and by the unanimous will and assent of all, both Greeks and Latins, it was defined that the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down at once into hell, to be punished, however, with unequal penalties. The truth of this definition, although it is made very clear to us from what has been said above, is nevertheless shown from this: just as in bodies there is weight or lightness by which they are carried to their place, which is the end of their motion, so also in souls there is merit or demerit, by which the soul attains reward or punishment, which are the ends of their actions. Consider how bodies by their weight are at once carried to their place unless they are hindered; so souls, as soon as the bond of the flesh, by which they were held in the state of life, is loosed, at once attain reward or punishment, unless something impedes it, as sometimes a venial sin or a debt of punishment impedes the attainment of reward, which must first be purged in Purgatory. From the foregoing it is also shown by authority that for those who die in actual mortal sin, of whom it is said in Job XXI, "they spend their days in good things, and in a moment go down to hell"; and from Luke XVI, where of the rich man Epulo it is thus said, that the rich man died and was buried in hell, and of his punishment it follows, "I am tormented in this flame." Nor can it be said that what is here said of Lazarus and of that damned rich man is a parable and not the truth of the matter; first, because in the whole of that chapter there is no mention that Christ spoke in parables; second, because there the name of the poor man is expressed, whereas a parable is said to be where an example is set forth and things are not narrated; for which reason Ambrose, on Luke, says that it is more a narrative than a parable, since the name is also expressed; third, this is shown by the testimonies of the holy Fathers, Greek as well as Latin, whose opinions in expounding this Gospel plainly show that it is not a fabricated parable but a true event that took place. Hence Chrysostom, on the words "the rich man died", says thus: he indeed died then in body, but his soul had been dead before, for he did nothing from the works of the soul, since all his fervour that comes from love of neighbour had expired, and he was, with his body dead, more dead still. Again, the same, on the words "and he, crying, said, Father Abraham, etc.", says thus: "He returned a loud cry for his great punishment: Father Abraham, have mercy on me. You do penance in vain in a place where there is no place for penance; torments compel you, not affection." Again Basil: "A fitting reward is rendered to that rich man: fire and infernal punishment, and a parched tongue; in place of the sounding lyre, groans; in place of drink, longing for a drop; in place of unceasing circling, the worm that is ever wakeful." Again this same blessed Gregory, who in the fourth book of the Dialogues, showing this truth of the Gospel, concludes thus: "Since, then, truth declares the rich sinner to be in the fires, what wise man would now deny that reprobate souls are held in fires?" We pass over a further exposition of this part, because the arguments adduced above in explaining the truth of the fifth article serve to confirm this truth. Hence Gregory in the fourth book of the Dialogues: "If you have believed, on the attestation of the sacred word, that the souls of the saints are in heaven, it is necessary that you believe in every respect that the souls of the wicked are in hell; for from the retribution of eternal justice, in which the just now rejoice, it is necessary that the unjust be tormented in every respect; for as blessedness gladdens them, so it must be believed that from the day of their departure fire burns the reprobate." As for those who die in original sin alone, the truth of this article is also made very clear from John III: "unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"; water, by its generality, excludes neither sex nor age, as in ch. Maiores, Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu; on which Augustine, in the book On the Faith to Peter, rule XXII, and in ch. Firmissime, De cons. dist. X: "Hold most firmly, and by no means doubt, that not only men who use reason, but also little children, who either begin to live in their mothers' wombs and die there, or who, born of their mothers without the sacrament of baptism, which is given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, pass out of this world, are to be punished with the eternal torment of everlasting fire; for even if they have no sin of their own action.

²⁹⁸ It is more a narrative than a parable. ²⁹⁹ He indeed died then in body. ³⁰⁰ A fitting reward, however, is rendered to that rich man. ³⁰¹ Since, therefore, truth declares the rich sinner to be in the fires... ³⁰² If you have believed that the souls of the saints are in heaven... ³⁰³ Not only rational men, but also little children. Yet they have drawn the condemnation of original sin by carnal conception and by birth." And so the truth of the article is evident in both its parts. THOSE WHO DIE IN ACTUAL MORTAL SIN. Sin is distinguished in two kinds in general, namely actual and original, both by the Master of the Sentences in book II, dist. XXX, and by Gratian, De poen. dist. IV, almost throughout, and in ch. Firmissime, cited a little before, De cons. dist. X, and Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, ch. Maiores. Actual sin, however, which is said to consist in the proper act of the person in whom it is, is divided into mortal and venial in the second book of the Sentences, dist. XLIII, and De poenitentia, dist. V, ch. Medicina, "There are three." Mortal sin is that by which a man merits eternal death; venial sin, however, is that which does not weigh a man down to the guilt of everlasting death, yet it does merit punishment, though it is easily pardoned: in the second book of the Sentences, dist. XLII, ch. Primo, and in the Decretum, dist. LV, §. Criminis, and ch. Qualiter. OR IN ORIGINAL SIN ALONE. Original sin is that which is drawn from origin by all who are conceived through the union of man and woman, as Augustine says in the ch. Firmissime mentioned above. We read that the holy Doctors have described it in various ways: it is called the tinder of sin, that is, concupiscence or concupiscibility, which is called the law of the members, or the languor of nature, or the tyrant that is in our members, or the law of the flesh, as in the second book of the Sentences, dist. XXX, and in the Decretum, cause XV, q. I, §. Ita. Anselm, however, in the book On the Virginal Conception, ch. XXVI, says that it is the lack, or nakedness, of original justice; but for the reconciliation of these views, according to St. Thomas and the other principal Doctors, it must be considered that in every sin there is to be found something as it were formal and something material. For if we consider actual sin, the very substance of the disordered act stands in the sin as material; but the disorder from the end is formal in the sin, because it chiefly has from this the character of evil. Hence it is said that conversion to a mutable good is there as material, and aversion from the immutable good is as formal; so it is in original sin. To see, however, what is material and what is formal in it, according to the opinion of St. Thomas in the first part of the second part, q. LXXXII, art. III, it must be noted that each thing has its species from its form; the species of original sin, however, is taken from its cause, wherefore what is formal in original sin must be taken from the side of the cause of original sin; and opposites have opposite causes; therefore the cause of original sin is to be considered from the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it. The whole ordering of original justice arises from this, that the will of man was subject to God, which subjection was first and principally through the will, whose office is to move all the other powers to their end; hence from the aversion of the will from God there followed disorder in all the other powers of the soul. Thus the privation of original justice, through which the will was subject to God, is the formal element of original sin; every other disorder of the powers of the soul stands in original sin as a kind of material element, and this disorder may be called by the common name of concupiscence; and so original sin is materially concupiscence, but formally a defect of original justice. INTO HELL. Hell is so called from "below" (infra), because it lies beneath the earth, since we read of Dathan and Abiram in Num. XVI that the earth opened and swallowed them, and they went down into the lower regions; and reason itself agrees with this interpretation, for just as the state of the damned differs by a complete distance from the state of the blessed, so place differs from place; hence, as a supreme place is due to the state of the blessed, so a lowest place is due to the state of misery, even in respect of the body.

³⁰⁴ Original sin... ³⁰⁵ Anselm, however, in the book On the Virginal Conception. ³⁰⁶ In every sin one finds something as it were formal. ³⁰⁷ To see, however, what is material. Jerome, moreover, on the prophet Jonah, says that hell is in the middle of the earth, as the heart is in the middle of an animal. Nevertheless it has various receptacles; hence St. Thomas, in the third book of the Sentences, dist. XXII, distinguishes a fourfold hell. One is the hell of the damned, in which there is darkness, both as to the lack of the vision of God and as to the lack of grace, and in which there is sensible punishment; this is the hell, the place of the damned, and into this place the present definition says that those descend who depart from this life in actual mortal sin. Another hell is above this one, in which there is darkness, both on account of the lack of the vision of God and on account of the lack of grace, but there is no sensible punishment there; it is called the Limbo of children, and into it are understood to descend those who depart from this life in original sin alone. A third hell is above this, in which there is darkness as to the lack of the vision of God, but not as to the lack of grace; yet there is sensible punishment there, and it is called Purgatory. Another is higher still, in which there is darkness as to the lack of the vision of God but not as to the lack of grace, and there is no sensible punishment there; this is the Limbo of the holy Fathers. WITH UNEQUAL PUNISHMENTS, that is, by reason of the inequality and diversity of sins; for those who die in actual mortal sin, with the punishment of loss, which is called the lack of the vision of God, are also afflicted with the sensible punishments of fire and of other torments, according to Ps. X: "Upon the sinners he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and the storm wind," etc. To them is said in Matt. XXV: "Depart, you cursed, into the eternal fire." For those who die in original sin alone suffer no sensible punishment, only the punishment of loss, namely the lack of the vision of God; hence in ch. Maiores, Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, it is said: "The punishment of original sin is the lack of the vision of God; the punishment of actual sin is the torment of perpetual Gehenna." And the reason for this is that the bitterness of sensible punishment answers to the delight of the fault, according to Apoc. XVIII: "As much as she glorified herself and lived in luxury, so much torment give her." But in original sin there is no delight, nor any operation, for delight follows operation, as is said in Ethics X. Wherefore blessed Augustine says, in On the Baptism of Little Children, that the punishment of those who, beyond the sin they drew in original sin, have added nothing, will be the mildest, as in ch. De generatione, De cons. dist. IV. But their punishment would not be the least if they were tormented by sensible things, since the punishment of the fire of hell is most grievous. But against this seems to be ch. Firmissime, where it is said: "Hold most firmly, and by no means doubt, that little children who pass from this world without the sacrament of baptism are to be punished with the everlasting torment of eternal fire." Moreover, the same Augustine, in the Pronosticon, says that little children who die without baptism will experience Gehenna. GEHENNA, however, seems to mean the punishment of sense. To these things it is answered, according to St. Thomas in the Quaestiones de malo, that by the name of punishment, of Gehenna, of torment or torture, or of whatever similar thing is found in the sayings of the saints by which little children who die without baptism are punished, it is to be taken broadly as penalty; hence the species is put for the genus. And the Gloss on the Decretum, in ch. Firmissime, takes it in this way, whence on the word "fire" it explains, that is, punishment; for St. Thomas says in the second book of the Sentences, replying to this argument, that by the name of fire any punishment is frequently signified in Scripture. The saints, moreover (says blessed Thomas), used this manner of speaking so as to render hateful the error of the Pelagians, who asserted that there is no sin in little children, nor any punishment owed to them.

³⁰⁸ Jerome, moreover, says on the prophet Jonah. ³⁰⁹ He distinguishes a fourfold hell. ³¹⁰ For delight follows operation. ³¹¹ That their punishment will be the least. ³¹² Hold most firmly... little ones. ³¹³ By the names of punishment, Gehenna, torment... Albert the Great, however, in the second part of his Summa, replying to that text of Matt. XXV, "Depart, you cursed, into the eternal fire", says that little children who die without baptism are said to be in fire not by reason of the burning which is in fire, namely that they feel the burning, but by reason of the darkness of the infernal place, which is said to be dark; hence Augustine, in On the Baptism of Little Children, as in ch. Nulla, De cons. dist. IV, says: "No salvation beyond baptism is promised to infants, because if infants do not pass through the sacrament, which for this purpose was divinely instituted, into the number of believers, they remain in darkness." Moreover, among those who die in actual mortal sin there is a diversity of punishments according to the diversity of sins, because, as it is said in Deut. XXV, "according to the measure of the sin shall be the measure of the blows"; hence blessed Gregory, in the fourth book of the Dialogues, says: "There is one fire of Gehenna, but it does not torment all sinners in one way; for of each one, as much as his fault demands, so much punishment will be felt there; for as in this world, under one sun, many dwell and yet do not feel the heat of the same sun equally, since one is scorched more and another less; so here, in one fire, there is not one mode of burning, because what the diversity of bodies does here, the diversity of sins does there, so that they have a fire not unlike, and in the same fire it burns each one differently." If, however, it be asked whether there is any disparity or difference in the very punishment which little children who depart without baptism suffer, it seems to be answered that there is not, because all are punished with one and the same and equal punishment, namely the lack of the vision of God, since original sin, to which the aforesaid punishment corresponds, insofar as it regards nature in itself, is undoubtedly found equally in all such persons, as St. Thomas says.

Also we define that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world; that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church was handed down to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, as is also contained in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.

Here is set out the eighth article of the controversy and discord between Latins and Greeks concerning the authority of the Roman Pontiff. For the Greeks denied that the Roman pontiff has the primacy of the universal Church, or that he is prince and father of all other pontiffs, granting him only the first place among the other Patriarchs, without any superiority of precedence. The Latins, on the contrary, said, as they have always affirmed, that the Roman pontiff has the primacy and precedence of the universal Church, and is head and father of all the faithful. On this article, after a careful and mature examination of the truth, the aforesaid definition was made, by the grace of Him from whom all good things proceed, with Greeks and Latins agreeing unanimously and the whole synod approving.

³¹⁴ Infants dying without baptism. ³¹⁵ No salvation is promised to infants apart from baptism. ³¹⁶ There is one fire of Gehenna, but it does not torment in one way. ³¹⁷ It seems to be answered that not, because all are one... And it is divided into two parts: in the first the definition of the article itself is set out; in the second the confirmation is brought forward from the acts of the universal Councils and from the reverence due to the sacred canons; the second part begins at AS ALSO etc. The first part is divided into seven, according to the seven parts contained in the definition: in the first it is declared that the Roman pontiff has the primacy over the whole world; in the second that he is the successor of blessed Peter; in the third that he is the true Vicar of Christ; in the fourth that he is head of the whole Church; in the fifth that he is father of all Christians; in the sixth that he is teacher of all the faithful; in the seventh that he has received from our Lord Jesus Christ the fullness of power to rule, feed and govern the universal Church. Each place is plain; but because the principate of the Roman pontiff defined in this place presupposes a government of the Church so instituted by Christ that one presides over the whole multitude of the Christian religion, before we come to the declaration of the present article let us briefly show that this institution of Christ is most fitting. First, indeed, because the principate of one over many is more natural than that of many over one could be; for the nature of principles loves unity, as blessed Augustine says in the first book On Marriage and Concupiscence. Hence Aristotle, proving the unity of the first principle, says in Metaphysics XII: "Beings do not wish to be ill-ordered; nor is a plurality of rulers good; one prince, therefore." Among bees too there is one leader, and cranes follow one in lettered order, says blessed Gregory in the ch. In apibus, VII, q. I. Second, because among the kinds of government of human cities the royal kind is nobler and more excellent, in which the supreme power and the authority of principate lie with one, as Aristotle teaches in Politics III. Third, because this kind of governmental arrangement is more like the divine government, in which one God presides over the whole world as its governor and ruler, Ecclesiasticus I: "There is one most high Creator of all." Fourth, because in the triumphant Church, from which the militant Church is descended as its pattern, Apoc. last, there is one supreme Hierarch presiding over all orders, to whom every hierarchy is conformed, as the divine Dionysius shows in ch. V of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Fifth, because in the old law, which was a figure of the new law, one high priest was instituted by divine disposition, to whom all the others ought to yield. Sixth, because with one presiding over the whole Church there is no doubt that the unity of faith, by which the Church is above all called one, is better preserved; of which the Apostle says in 1 Cor. I: "That you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you." Since the fitness of this divine institution of one supreme prince and father in the whole Church has now been made clear, let us go on to show, running through each part of the present defined article with apt explanations, that such a one and universal prince, ruler and pastor of the whole Christian commonwealth is the Roman pontiff. That the Apostolic See, or the Roman pontiff, has the primacy over the whole world, as the first part of the article says, can plainly be had from many places of holy Scripture, according to the opinions and expositions of the holy Fathers and Doctors; yet for the sake of brevity we shall show it from just two. And first, it is most clear from Matt. XVI, where the Lord speaks specially to Peter, saying, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church", etc. For although the other Apostles also received the keys, yet from the fact that Christ, from whom nothing is to be thought said or done in vain,

³¹⁸ For the nature of principles loves singularity. ³¹⁹ Beings are unwilling to be ill-ordered. ³²⁰ Among bees there is one prince. ³²¹ Of royal rule. ³²² One supreme hierarch. He, since he is the wisdom of God, speaks so specially to Peter about the keys above all the others; hence it is most openly given to understand that the primacy and principate of judicial power over all the others was bestowed on Peter. That we have this clearly from the testimonies of the holy Fathers, Greek as well as Latin, who treat this Gospel place. For St. Anacletus, third from St. Peter and a Greek by birth, in his decretals, in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. XXII, says thus: "The holy Roman and Apostolic Church obtained the primacy not from the Apostles but from the Lord and Saviour himself, who said to blessed Peter the Apostle, 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church', and so on"; and below: "Among the blessed Apostles there was a certain distinction of power, and although all were Apostles, it was yet granted by the Lord to Peter that he should preside over all the other Apostles." Likewise blessed Chrysostom, a Greek by birth, expounding this place on Matthew, speaks thus: "See how Christ brings Peter back to a lofty understanding of him; for he promised to give him those things which belong to God alone, namely to loose sins, and to make the Church immovable amid so many storms of persecutions and temptations." And again, as St. Thomas brings forward in the treatise concerning the Greeks, on Matthew, he speaks thus: "The Son gave to Peter, throughout all lands, what is the Father's and the power of the Son himself; and to a mortal man he gave authority over all that is in heaven, by giving him the keys, so that he might extend the Church throughout all lands." Likewise St. Cyril, a Greek, in the book of Treasures, expounding this authority, speaks thus, as is adduced in the continuous Gloss: "According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains immaculate from all seduction and heretical circumvention, above all prelates and bishops, and above all the primates of the Churches and of the peoples in their pontiffs, in the fullest faith and authority of Peter." Likewise, in witness of this universal primacy, the Greek Patriarch Anastasius, writing to Pope Felix, as in ch. Fuit, X, q. III, says thus: "It has always been the licence of your Apostolic See to restore by its own sovereign authority those unjustly condemned or excommunicated, and to give back to them all their goods, and to punish by Apostolic privilege those who condemned or excommunicated them, as we know was done also in our own and in earlier times." The testimonies of the Latin holy Fathers, scattered in many places through the Gloss and the expositions of canon and sermon, and through the Decretum and the Decretals, are numerous; of these we shall bring forward a few. For the most blessed Pope Clement says in ch. In illis, dist. LXXX, that among the Apostles themselves there was no equal institution, but one presided over all. Likewise blessed Augustine, in the letter to Glorius and Eleusius, grammarians, says that in the Roman Church the principate of the Apostolic chair has always flourished. Likewise the most holy Pope Leo, in the third sermon of his ordination, says that from the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is set over the calling of all nations, and over all the Apostles and all the fathers of the Church; and below: "For this reason it is said to blessed Peter, 'I will give you the keys', etc." Indeed the force of this power passed over to the other Apostles, and the constitution of this decree reached all the princes of the Church; but it is not in vain that what is announced to all is entrusted to one, Peter. For to Peter this is singularly entrusted, because the pattern of Peter is set before all the rulers of the Church. Likewise Pope Julius, as in ch. Nolite errare, dist. XI, says that in the Apostolic See the Lord placed the principate of the whole Church. Likewise blessed Gregory, writing to John the subdeacon, in ch. Quanto, dist. LXII, says: "By its authority the Apostolic See is established as set above all churches." These things stand established among the churches.

³²³ The most holy Roman and Apostolic Church... ³²⁴ See how Christ restores Peter... ³²⁵ The Son, in what belongs to the Father... has granted power to Peter. ³²⁶ The Apostolic Church of Peter, free from all seduction... ³²⁷ It has always been the licence of your Apostolic See... ³²⁸ Among the Apostles themselves there was no equal institution. ³²⁹ In the Roman Church of the Apostolic chair... ³³⁰ From the whole world one Peter is chosen. ³³¹ In the Apostolic See the Lord placed the principate of the whole Church. ³³² The Apostolic See, preferred to all by authority. These things stand established among the churches. Many other testimonies to this I pass over, such as those of Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Bede and Rabanus, and of many supreme pontiffs. Moreover, secondly, the primacy and principate of the Roman pontiff is shown most openly from the last chapter of John, where Christ says to Peter, "Feed my sheep", that is, in my place, as Chrysostom explains: "Be set over, and the head of your brethren." On this word Theophylact is cited in the continuous Gloss, who says: "When the meal was finished, he committed to Peter the charge of the sheep of the world." And Chrysostom, on the Acts of the Apostles, says: "Peter received from the Son power over all who are sons; not as Moses in one nation, but in the whole world, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Feed my sheep'; not distinguishing among the other sheep, but committing all the sheep to his care." Moreover, Pope Adrian, of happy memory, in a letter sent to Athanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, says among other things: "The see of blessed Peter, holding the primacy over the whole circle of the earth, shines forth, and stands as the head of all the Churches of Christ." Moreover, that blessed Peter held the principate over the whole world the whole Church professes, which on his solemnity recalls the word spoken to him by Christ: "Simon Peter, before I called you from the ship I knew you, and I have set you over my people." Hence the Emperor Constantine, enlightened by the faith of Christ, understanding this divine disposition concerning the principate of the Apostolic See and of the Roman pontiff, and devoutly embracing it, by way of executing the divine plan, ordained on the fourth day of his baptism that throughout the whole world the other pontiffs and priests should have the Roman pontiff as their head, as judges have kings; and that he should hold the principate both over the four sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople, and over all the churches of God in the whole world; decreeing that the pontiff who for the time being is of the Roman Church should be higher, and prince over all priests and of the whole world; and that by his judgment whatever is to be arranged for the worship of God, or the faith of Christians, or the securing of stability, should be disposed; in ch. Constantinus, dist. XCV. That the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, in the same fullness of authority and breadth of principate, as the second part of the aforesaid definition states, is evident; for since such power was given to Peter by Christ for the building up of the Church, this power must last as long as it is necessary for the Church to be built up; and this was necessary after the death of Peter until the end of the world. Thus the power was given to Peter so that it might be poured out and derived upon others after him who would sit in his chair. For the Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: "I am with you even to the consummation of the world." Whence blessed Cyril, Patriarch of Jerusalem, speaking to Peter in the person of Christ, says: "You with an end, I without end; with all whom I shall place in your stead I shall be with them fully and perfectly, in sacred authority, as I am with you." And blessed Cyril of Alexandria, in the book of Treasures: "As Christ received from the Father, as leader, the sceptre of the Church of the nations which would go forth from Israel, over every principate and power, and over every name, so that every knee should bow to him, the fullest power; so he most fully committed the same to Peter and his successors"; and below: "To no other than Peter did he give what is his own, full power, but to him alone"; and below: "The feet of Christ are the humanity; he himself is the man, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, which, having taken it up and transferred it into the unity of the person, he holds over every principate and power, with all the angels of God; all this he has imparted by sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church."

³³³ Be placed over them, and be the head of your brothers. ³³⁴ Peter received from the Son power over all who are sons. ³³⁵ The See of blessed Peter, holding the primacy over the whole orb of the earth... ³³⁶ You with the end, I without end... ³³⁷ So also he committed most fully to Peter and his successors. Likewise Innocent IV, as in ch. Ad apostolicum, De sententia et re iudicata, says: "Although unworthy, we hold the office of Jesus Christ on earth; and in the person of blessed Peter it was said to us, 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven', etc." Moreover, that the Roman pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, acting in the place of Christ on earth, as the third part of the definition holds, is plainly seen from John last: "Feed my sheep", that is, in my place, as Chrysostom expounded: "Be set over, and the head of your brethren"; so that, taking you in my place, they may proclaim and confirm that you sit on your throne throughout all the lands. And blessed Cyril of Alexandria says in the book of Treasures that the Apostles and Evangelists affirmed, in the Gospels and Epistles, that in all teaching Peter stands in the place of the Lord, and gives place to his Church in every chapter and synagogue, in every election and confirmation. For although all bishops are called vicars of Christ, according to 2 Cor. V: "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were exhorting through us"; and 1 Cor. III: "Let a man so regard us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the ministries of God"; for this is said of the Apostles, and consequently of their successors, who are bishops, as St. Anacletus says in ch. In novo, dist. XXI; yet one among them, the principal and supreme vicar, has been appointed for preserving the unity of the Church, namely the Roman pontiff. Whence the Gloss on that text of Matt. XVI, "You are Peter, and upon this rock", etc., says that Christ specially granted to Peter the power of binding and loosing, that he might invite us to unity. For he therefore made him prince of the Apostles, so that the Church might have one principal vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church would have recourse if perhaps they differed among themselves; and if there were different heads in the Church, the bonds of unity would be broken. Further, that the Roman pontiff is the head of the whole Church, as the fourth part of the definition says, is made most clear both from what has been said and from John I, where Christ says to Peter, "You shall be called Cephas." For Cephas, although in one language Peter is its interpretation, yet in Greek it seems to be interpreted as head. For cephalē is the Greek word, caput the Latin, says blessed Isidore, and the Greek doctors expound it in this way. Whence blessed Anacletus, a Greek by birth, as in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. XXII, says: "Among the Apostles there was a certain distinction of power, and although all were Apostles, it was yet granted by the Lord to Peter that he should preside over all the other Apostles, and hold Cephas, that is, the head and beginning of the apostolate." To the same effect is blessed Chrysostom, who, expounding that text of John last, "Feed my sheep", says thus: "Christ speaks to Peter as preferring him to the others; for Peter was the outstanding one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples and the summit of the college"; and blessed Dionysius, in ch. V of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, calls the most blessed Peter the truthful one among the disciples. Wherefore blessed Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, exhorts thus: "Let us remain as members in our head, the Apostolic throne of the Roman pontiffs, from whom we must seek what we ought to believe and hold, venerating him and asking him; for it is his alone to rebuke, correct, establish, arrange, loose and bind, in the place of him who built it, to whom all bow the head by divine right, and the princes of the world, as though obeying the Lord Jesus Christ himself." Of the Latin holy Fathers the testimonies to this truth are almost countless; of these the testimonies of only two ancient holy pontiffs and martyrs will suffice, which, because they pursue with blessed Cyril the same exhortation to religious obedience and reverence for the Apostolic See, seem more to favour the present place.

³³⁸ Feed my sheep, that is, in my place. ³³⁹ That Peter is in the place of the Lord. ³⁴⁰ Yet one among them, the principal vicar... ³⁴¹ For in Greek it is called kephalē, in Latin caput. ³⁴² For Peter was the outstanding one of the Apostles... ³⁴³ They call the most blessed Peter the truthful one among the disciples. ³⁴⁴ Let us remain members in our head, the Apostolic throne. First, blessed Callistus, Pope and martyr, writing to all bishops, speaks thus: "It is not fitting for members to separate from the head, but according to the testimony of Scripture all members should follow the head; and there is no doubt that the Apostolic Church is mother of all churches, from whose rules it is in no way fitting to stray; and as the Son came to do the will of the Father, so you too should fulfil the will of your mother, which is the Church, whose head, as has been said, was the Roman Church," in ch. Non decet, dist. XII. Secondly, to the same effect is blessed Marcellus, Pope and martyr, who, writing to all the bishops established in Antioch, says: "We beg you, most beloved brothers, that you teach and think nothing other than what you have received from blessed Peter the Apostle and the other Apostles and fathers; for he himself is the head of the whole Church, to whom the Lord said, 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'," in ch. Rogamus, XXIII, q. I. Likewise the Emperor Justinian, a professor of this faith, writing to the Roman pontiff in the letter Inter claras, which is found in ch. De summa Trinitate, et fide catholica, says thus: "We do not allow anything that pertains to the state of the churches, though it be manifest and undoubted, not to be made known also to your holiness, because it is the head of all the holy churches." Moreover, that the Roman pontiff is father of all Christians, as the fifth part of the definition says, is manifest from the very interpretation of the name; for he is called Pope, as it were father of fathers, just as Patriarch is interpreted as chief of the fathers, in ch. Cleros, dist. XXI; so that it can be said to all the faithful, in the person of Christ, concerning Simon Peter, the first Roman pontiff, what Mattathias, when the time of his death was near, said to his sons about his son Simon: "Behold, Simon your brother; I know that he is a man of counsel; always listen to him, and he will be a father to you." Whence blessed Marcellus, writing to the bishops of Antioch, says: "It is not right for you to abandon your own father and follow others; for he is the head of the whole Church." And the fathers at the Council of Chalcedon, near the end of the fifth action, say: "We hold and believe this, that the confession of Leo carries equal weight with all of them." Here it must be considered that the Roman pontiff can be called father of all the pontiffs of the Church in four ways: by age, by honour, by origin, and by care. By age, in a certain way, because the Apostolic See is first among all; it was first at Antioch, and afterwards, at the Lord's command, transferred to Rome, as in ch. Rogamus, XXIII, q. I: "First," says St. Marcellus the Pope. Secondly, he is father by honour, for blessed Peter was first of the Apostles in honour and dignity, and so the Roman Church, consecrated by his name, is most justly first and head of the others, says Pope Julius, writing to the Eastern bishops, in ch. Dum, II, q. V; and blessed Anacletus, a Greek by birth, in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. XXII, says: "The first see is, by heavenly favour, the Roman Church, which Peter and Paul consecrated by their martyrdom." Thirdly, he is father by origin: first, because he first laid the foundations of the faith by which anyone is counted by the Christian name; whence the Lord said to Peter, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church", etc.; on which word blessed Ambrose, as in ch. Fidelior, dist. L, says: "He is called a rock because he first laid the foundations of faith among the nations, and, like an immovable stone, holds together the framework and mass of the whole body of the Church."

³⁴⁵ It is not fitting for the members to depart from the head. ³⁴⁶ For he himself is the head of the whole Church. ³⁴⁷ The Roman pontiff... because he is the head. ³⁴⁸ You ought not to leave your own father. ³⁴⁹ The Roman Church, consecrated by its own name... ³⁵⁰ The first see... is the Roman Church. ³⁵¹ He is called Rock, because he first laid the foundations of the faith. Secondly, because blessed Anacletus says in ch. In novo, dist. XXI: "In the New Testament, after Christ the Lord, the priestly order began from Peter, because to him first the pontificate in the Church of Christ was given, when the Lord said to him, 'You are Peter and upon this rock', etc." Thirdly, because the Roman Church instituted and founded all the other patriarchal sees, or metropolitans, and churches of whatever order; the text in ch. Omnes, dist. XXI, is most clear. Likewise Pope Vigilius, writing to Bishop Enthero, says: "To no one, however slightly learned or fully wise, is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and pattern of the churches, from which no one of the right-believing is ignorant that all churches took their beginning." Fourthly, because from the Roman pontiff, or from the Apostolic See, the authority of jurisdiction is poured out into the whole body of the Church, as the most holy Pope Leo says in ch. Dominus, dist. XIX; and because honour and reverence are owed to a father, according to that of Malachi I: "If then I am a father, where is my honour?" The most devout Emperor Charles used to say: "In memory of blessed Peter we honour the holy Roman and Apostolic See, which ought to be for us both mother of priestly dignity and teacher of ecclesiastical reason," in ch. In memoriam, dist. XIX. Fourthly, the Roman pontiff is called father of all Christians by care; whence in John last it was said to Peter, "Feed my sheep"; the Gloss, citing Chrysostom, says: "Christ commits all His sheep to his care." Likewise Pope Leo, in a letter he wrote to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, says: "As my predecessors to your predecessors, so I too now, following the example of the earlier ones, have delegated to your charity the stead of my government, so that, becoming an imitator of our gentleness, you may help with the care which we owe principally to all churches by divine institution." And Gregory, writing to the Emperor Maurice, says thus: "It is clear to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to holy Peter the Apostle, the prince of all the Apostles; to him it is said, 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.'" Hence the Emperor Justinian, writing to the most blessed Pope John II, supreme pontiff, speaks thus: "At the outset, rendering honour to the Apostolic See and to your holiness, which has always been our wish, and is, and as is fitting toward fathers, honouring your beatitude, we hasten to bring to the knowledge of your holiness all that pertains to the state of the churches." Moreover, that the Roman pontiff is doctor and teacher of all Christians, as the sixth part of the definition says, is manifest from John last, "Feed my sheep"; and to feed, as Alcuin says in the Gloss, is to strengthen believers in Christ that they not fall from the faith, which is known to be accomplished by the food of knowledge and doctrine, according to Jer. III: "I will give you shepherds according to my heart, who shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine." Whence blessed Chrysostom, on John, says that Christ confines James to a place, but appoints Peter teacher and doctor of the whole world; whence in the synodal letter of Agatho, read at the Sixth Council, it is said that the Roman pontiff, by the Lord's precept, has to imbue and instruct the Christian people; and blessed Athanasius, in the synodal letter which he wrote to the most blessed Pope Felix, says among other things: "You, as prince and doctor and head of all orthodox doctrine and of spotless faith, are the deposer of profane heresies and of all the unskilled." Whence blessed Maximus, in a letter addressed to the Easterners, speaks thus: "All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received God, and all Catholics everywhere confessing the true faith, look to the Church of the Roman pontiffs as to the sun, and from its very light receive the truth of the Catholic and Apostolic faith; and not undeservedly, for Peter is read to have first confessed the perfect faith, the Lord revealing it, in Matt. XVI: 'You are Christ, the Son of the living God'; whence the Lord also says to him, 'I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.'" Thus far he.

³⁵² In the New Testament... with Peter the priestly order began. ³⁵³ The Roman Church is the foundation and the form of the churches. ³⁵⁴ In the fourth way the Roman pontiff is called father... care. ³⁵⁵ It is clear to all who know the Gospel... ³⁵⁶ Rendering honour to the Apostolic See... ³⁵⁷ To feed... is for those believing in Christ... to strengthen. ³⁵⁸ But he appoints Peter the teacher of the whole world. ³⁵⁹ What the Roman pontiff has by the precept of the Lord... ³⁶⁰ You, of the profane heresies... teacher, and head...

Hence the Apostolic See has been called by the holy Fathers mother and teacher of the faith, as in ch. Omnes, dist. XXII, to which all greater and more difficult causes are ordered to be referred, as in ch. Praeceptis, dist. XII, and in ch. Non licuit, dist. XVII; blessed Pope Gregory says it; and blessed Pelagius, in ch. Multis; and Pope Innocent, in ch. Quotiens, XXIV, q. I. And this reasonably, since it was said to Peter alone, "Launch out into the deep", the Gloss of Ambrose; and it is found in ch. Non turbatur, XXIII, quaest. I, that is, into the depth of disputations. AND TO HIM IN BLESSED PETER. Here is set forth the last part of the article on the primacy and authority of the Roman pontiff, in which it is said that full power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church was given by Christ to the Roman pontiff in blessed Peter. This part shines more clearly than light from what has gone before, both from Matt. XVI, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and to you I will give" etc., and from John last: "Feed my sheep"; in which words, according to the opinions, chiefly of the Greek Fathers, assigned above in the second part of this article, full power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church was given by Christ to Peter and to his successors, so that the Roman pontiff alone is called to the fullness of power. Others, however, are called to a part of the care, as in ch. Decreto, II, q. VI; and this is because the power of others is restricted by certain limits, whereas the power of the Roman pontiff extends even to those who have received power over others, as the devout Bernard says. Whence Pope Leo, in a letter which he writes to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, says thus: "For we entrust our office to your charity in such a way that, called to a part of the care, not to the fullness of power."³⁶¹ TO HIM IN BLESSED PETER, who in this part was the figure of all his successors; for Peter received not only for himself alone the primacy of the Church and the principate of judicial power, but also for all his successors, whose person he represented. Hence blessed Augustine, on John, and it is found in ch. Quodcumque, XXIV, quaest. I, says that Peter, when he received the keys, signified the holy Church. TO FEED, John last: "Feed my sheep." TO RULE. It belongs to a shepherd to rule the flock committed to him; Acts XX: "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he acquired with his own blood." Concerning the breadth and universality of the power of ruling which the Roman pontiff has with respect to the universal Church, St. Anacletus, in his third decretal letter, which he wrote to all bishops, speaks thus, as in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. XXII: "As all things are governed by the hinge, so by the authority of this holy see all churches are governed, the Lord so disposing." And the most blessed Pope Leo, in a certain sermon of his ordination, speaks thus: "From the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is set over the calling of all nations, and over all the Apostles and all the fathers of the Church; so that, although there are many priests and many pastors in the people of God, yet Peter rules properly all those whom Christ also principally rules." TO GOVERN. To govern is the act of a praepositus, or prince, according to what is said of Joseph in Gen. XXXIX: "The steward over all governed the house entrusted to him"; and of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, blessed Pope Leo, in a certain sermon of his ordination, says that by persevering in constant strength he took up the helm of the Church and did not leave it.

³⁶² The Apostolic See, mother and teacher of the faith. ³⁶³ As often as the Pope... ³⁶⁴ But others to a share of the care. ³⁶⁵ For we entrust our vicariate to your charity in this way. ³⁶⁶ When Peter received the keys, he signified the holy Church. ³⁶⁷ As by the hinge... is governed, so by the authority of this holy see... ³⁶⁸ From the whole world one Peter is chosen. FROM OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, not from the Apostles; for, as St. Anacletus says in the letter mentioned above, and as it is found in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. XXII: "The holy Roman and Apostolic Church obtained the primacy not from the Apostles but from the Lord and Saviour himself, as he said to blessed Peter the Apostle, 'You are Peter', etc." FROM OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST; not from universal Councils, because, as Pope Pelagius of holy memory says in ch. Quamvis, dist. XXI: "The holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was set above the other churches not by any synodal constitutions, but obtained the primacy by the Gospel voice of the Lord and our Saviour; 'You are Peter', he says, 'and upon this rock', etc." FROM OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST; not from Caesar, or from any other earthly power, because, as Pope Nicholas of holy memory says in ch. Omnes, dist. XXII: "He alone founded it, and set it up upon the rock of the faith just then arising, who committed to blessed Peter, keeper of the keys of eternal life, the rights of both earthly and heavenly rule." Therefore it was not any earthly substance, but that Word by which heaven and earth were constructed, through whom finally all created elements were made, that founded the Roman Church; and this truth is also declared by manifest reason in this way. The first power in each order of power, which is presupposed by the lower powers of that order, must of necessity depend immediately on the author of that order; this is evident of itself; but papal power is first in the ecclesiastical order among all its powers, for, as St. Anacletus says in ch. In novo, dist. XXI: "In the New Testament, after Christ the Lord, the priestly order began from Peter, and to him first the pontificate in the Church of Christ was given." Papal power is also presupposed by the others, when it stands in relation to them, as the head to the members, as in ch. Ita Dominus, dist. XIX; and as the fountain to the streams, and the root to the branches, as in ch. Loquitur Dominus, XXIV, quaest. I; therefore it must necessarily be said that papal power derives from Christ alone, the first author of the ecclesiastical order. FULL, according to every difference of place, time and condition of persons; Matt. XVI: "Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven", etc. AS IS ALSO CONTAINED IN THE ACTS OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND IN THE SACRED CANONS. Here is set forth the confirmation of the aforesaid article, taking testimony both from the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and from the authority of the sacred canons. The primacy of the Roman pontiff over the universal Church is gathered, first of all, from the acts of the universal and Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in that part in which the holy synod humbly asks that its decrees be strengthened and confirmed by the Roman pontiff; whence the fathers of that synod write thus to the most blessed Silvester, then pontiff of the city of Rome: "To the most blessed Pope Silvester of the city of Rome, to be honoured with all reverence. Osius, bishop of the province of Spain, of the city of Cordova, and the other co-bishops, three hundred and eighteen, greetings in the Lord. Now, that everything for the increase of your see be strengthened more carefully," and below: "Whatever we have decided at the Council of Nicaea we pray may be confirmed by the fellowship of your authority." Likewise, secondly, the aforesaid superiority of the Roman pontiff is gathered from the acts of the third synod, namely the first Ephesian, in that part in which the whole synod, sending on the synodal decrees concerning Nestorius, writes thus: "Behold, therefore, you,

³⁶⁹ The prince of the Apostles, blessed Pope Leo... ³⁷⁰ The most holy Roman... has obtained the primacy. ³⁷¹ The holy Roman Church... has obtained the primacy. ³⁷² He alone founded it... ³⁷³ In the New Testament after Christ... ³⁷⁴ Full power. together with the holy synod, which was assembled in the ample city of Rome under the presidency of the most holy and venerable father and our fellow-priest, the bishop Celestine, we have now for a third time met in these synodal writings, giving counsel that you abstain from such depraved dogmas as you are known both to hold and to teach. But receive the right faith, handed down to the churches from the beginning by the most blessed Apostles and Evangelists, who both beheld with their eyes and are shown to have been ministers of the word. And if your reverence delays to do this, in accordance with the delay set down in the letters of our most holy and venerable fellow-priest, Celestine, prelate of the Roman Church, know that you shall have no lot with us, nor place or assembly or conference with the priests and bishops of God; these are the words there. For clearly, unless the Roman pontiff had the principate of authority over all the pontiffs of the Church, blessed Celestine, the Roman prelate, would have had no licence to condemn Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, nor would the holy synod have so reverently observed the extension of the peremptory term." Likewise, thirdly, the aforesaid superiority of the pontificate of the Roman prelate is gathered from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon: first, in that part in which the whole synod is read to have acclaimed blessed Pope Leo, "Most holy Leo, ecumenical Patriarch, may he live for many years!"; and secondly, in that part in which the same synod humbly asks that its decrees be confirmed by the said Roman pontiff. Whence the fathers of that synod write thus to the most blessed Leo, Roman pontiff: "We know that whatever of rectitude is done by sons redounds to the fathers, making this as it were their own; we therefore ask that you also honour our judgment with your decrees, and as we have added our longed-for harmony in good things, so may your highness fulfil what is fitting for your sons"; and below: "But that you may know that we have done nothing by granting favour to anyone or by opposing through enmity, but under divine governance we make known to you the whole force of the acts, for the proof of our sincerity and for the firmness and harmony of what was done by us." Then, thirdly, the superiority of the primacy of the Roman pontiff is gathered from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, in that part in which the sentence of condemnation against Dioscorus is read to have been promulgated, at the synod's request, by Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, and his companions, legates of the most blessed Pope Leo; and for this most powerful reason: because Dioscorus had presumed, in the second Council of Ephesus, to rage against the Apostolic See and to dictate a sentence of excommunication against the Roman pontiff Leo. Likewise in that part in which the synod devoutly accepted the ordination made by Pope Leo of Maximus as bishop of Antioch. Likewise, fourthly, the primacy of the Roman pontiff is gathered from the acts of the sixth universal synod, in that part in which the holy fathers of the same synod are read to have received with great veneration the letters of suggestion of Pope Agatho, which he had sent to the Emperor Constantine against the Monothelites, who asserted one operation and one will in Christ. In these letters there are very many things about the primacy of the Apostolic See and the principate of the Roman pontiff. For the most blessed Agatho, in his first suggestion, says among other things about blessed Peter, to the point: "Blessed Peter received the spiritual sheep of the Church to be fed, with a threefold commendation from the Redeemer of all; and with his presiding power this Apostolic Church of his has never turned aside from truth into any part of error. By whose authority, as prince of all the Apostles, every Catholic Church and the universal synods have always followed in all things.

³⁷⁵ But receive the right faith... ³⁷⁶ The most holy Leo, ecumenical patriarch... ³⁷⁷ Blessed Peter ... the spiritual sheep of the Church... Faithfully³⁷⁸ embracing it, and all the venerable fathers, embracing his Apostolic doctrine, through which both the most approved lights of Christ shone forth and the holy Orthodox Doctors have shown it reverence and followed it." Likewise, fifthly, the same is gathered from the acts of the seventh synod, in that part—first, in which the whole synod is read to have received with great reverence the letters of Pope Nicholas and of his successor, holy Adrian, in which it is most openly asserted that the Apostolic See holds the primacy over the whole world, and is head and teacher of the other churches. Secondly, in that part in which the whole synod, observer and cultivator of obedience and reverence toward the Apostolic See, condemned Photius and Gregory of Syracuse as schismatics, who arrogantly conspired against the principate of the Apostolic See.

THE SACRED CANONS CONTAIN. That the sacred canons contain and teach that the Apostolic See and the Roman pontiff hold the primacy and principate over the whole world, many holy fathers bear witness. For holy Pope Julius, the second after Saint Silvester, speaks thus in the chapter Dudum, ch. III, q. VI: Long ago it was decreed by the holy Apostles and their successors in the ancient statutes, which the holy and universal Apostolic Church has hitherto held, that councils ought not to be celebrated, nor a bishop condemned, without the sentence of the Roman pontiff, since they wished the holy Roman Church to be the primate of all churches.³⁷⁹ Dudum a sanctis Apostolis successoribusque eorum...

Likewise Paschasius, bishop, Vicar of the Apostolic See and presiding in the place of the most blessed Pope Leo at the Council of Chalcedon, at the sixteenth session, says thus: The sixth canon of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers is that the Roman Church has always had the primacy. Moreover, the same is attested by John II, Pope of happy memory, writing to the Emperor Justinian, as is found in the chapter De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, saying thus: You preserve reverence for the Roman See, and subject everything to it, and lead them into its unity; to whose author, that is to the first of the Apostles, it was commanded by the Lord, speaking, "Feed my sheep"; which the statutes of the fathers declare to be truly the head of all the churches, and the most reverend utterances of your piety bear witness. Likewise, to the same effect, holy Pope Gelasius, writing to the Emperor Anastasius, says thus: That the See of the Apostle Peter is placed before all the Christian people of the world and before the whole Church, is confirmed both by the sequence of the paternal canons and by manifold tradition. Moreover, holy Pope Pelagius attests the same in the chapter Ipsi sunt, saying: They are the canons which willed that the appeals of the whole Church be brought to the examination of this See, and decreed that one must never appeal from it; and thereby that it judges the whole Church, but itself comes to the judgment of no one, nor did they ever ordain that it be judged by anyone's judgment; and they established that its sentence ought not to be dissolved, whose decrees they commanded to be followed. There is no doubt that all these things bear the clearest testimony to the primacy of the Apostolic See. But someone might reasonably ask, since the Greeks seemed to be accused by Latin doctors of many other articles, why mention was made of these eight articles set out in the present Decree by our most holy lord, and especially since there is one faith of all the faithful, as the Apostle says to the Ephesians, ch. IV? It is answered, first, that in these eight articles there seemed to be the principal difference between the Greeks and the Latins, whereas many of the others were not so common to the whole Eastern Church. Second, because many of the other articles which were ascribed to the Greeks

³⁸⁰ Editor’s note: The scan and its OCR witness read deliter; fideliter is supplied from the Latin syntax and context. depend as corollaries upon these, and are understood to be removed in consequence, once agreement has been reached on the principal points. Third, because some of the Greeks were accused of many things in earlier times, from which those who were present among us have shown themselves most manifestly free and innocent, both in what they said and in what they did; wherefore it was not necessary to make mention of the others.

Renewing moreover the order handed down by the canons of the other venerable Patriarchs, so that the Patriarch of Constantinople is second after the most holy Roman Pontiff, the Alexandrian third, the Antiochene fourth, and the Jerusalemite fifth, all their privileges and rights being, that is, preserved.

After the definition of the primacy of the Roman pontiff, there is consequently set forth here the order which the other principal Patriarchs ought to observe among themselves, and it is divided into two parts. First, the order of the other Patriarchal Sees is confirmed, as previously instituted by the fathers; namely, that the Patriarch of Constantinople be second after the Roman pontiff, the third indeed, etc. Second, the rights and privileges of the aforesaid Patriarchs are confirmed, from the second word there, SAVING. HANDED DOWN BY THE CANONS, that is, first from the first universal Synod of Constantinople, in which, as in the chapter Constantinopolitanae, dist. XXII, it is thus held: The bishop of the city of Constantinople ought to have the honour of the primacy after the Roman bishop, for the reason that it is New Rome. Likewise, secondly, this order was handed down in the Synod of Chalcedon, where at the sixteenth session it is thus held: Following the definition of the holy fathers, and everywhere the rule which has now been read, of the one hundred and fifty bishops most dear to God, who gathered under the Emperor Theodosius of pious memory in the royal city of Constantinople, recognizing Rome, we ourselves also define the same concerning the privileges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople, New Rome, etc. Likewise, thirdly, the same is said to be held from the sixth synod, in which, as in the chapter Renovantes, dist. XXII, Gratian introduces it, although we could find nothing of the kind in any part of the aforesaid synod. Likewise, fourthly, the same order is held from the canon of the general Council of the Lateran, which Innocent III celebrated at Rome with a very great multitude of prelates, both Greek and Latin; in which, as in the chapter Antiqua, Extra, de privilegiis, it is thus held: Renewing the ancient privileges of the Patriarchal Sees, with the holy universal synod approving, we decree that after the Roman Church, which by the disposition of the Lord holds the principate of ordinary power over all others, as the mother and teacher of all the faithful of Christ, the Constantinopolitan Church shall hold the first place, the Alexandrian the second, the Antiochene the third, and the Jerusalemite the fourth, each keeping its own proper dignity. But here there arises a fairly reasonable question, why this order of Patriarchs was so often renewed by the fathers. The answer is that it was on account of the objection which it had from the Apostolic See at the beginning of its institution. For since in ancient times the Alexandrian Church held the second place, as holy Anacletus attests³⁸¹ in his decretal letter, in the chapter Sacrosancta, dist. XXII, and the holy fathers at the Council of Nicaea had decreed that this very thing should always be observed, as Since in ancient times the Alexandrian Church held the second place... in the chapter Mos, dist. XLV, the holy fathers, the Roman pontiffs, taking it grievously, and the Alexandrian Church being stripped of its prerogative contrary to the canons of Nicaea, never willed to assent to it, nor to lend the force of confirmation to the aforesaid canon. As Pope Damasus did, under whom the second synod was held, in which that canon was first introduced. Moreover Pope Leo, under whom the fourth synod was held, in which the aforesaid canon was first renewed, objected in many ways, as his letters openly attest, which he wrote both to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, at whose suggestion the aforesaid renewal had been attempted, and to the fathers of the same Synod of Chalcedon. And since the fathers of the Eastern Church knew very well that the canons of councils could have no force of firmness without the assent and confirmation of the Apostolic See, they took pains through many synods to renew the aforesaid canon, until they obtained confirmation from the Apostolic See at the entreaty of the Emperor. And it seems that Pope Vigilius, under whom the fifth synod was held, confirmed this second order, as can also be had from the Authentica, tit. de ecclesiasticis titulis, collation nine, where the Emperor Justinian, after professing to receive the dogmas of the four universal synods as the Holy Scriptures, and to observe their rules as divine laws, speaks thus: And so we decree, according to their definitions, that the most holy pope of older Rome is the first of all priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, should hold the second place after the holy Apostolic See of older Rome. And below, speaking of the provinces subject to his jurisdiction, he speaks thus: and in the provinces subject to him to hold that place of the Apostolic See and of Rome, in the second rank, according to those things which were defined by the most holy Pope Vigilius, and so the latter, namely in the order of power and dignity. For order, as Priscian says, is a part of power; hence those which have a different degree in order have also a different degree in power. From this it is gathered in the clearest light how openly they err who interpret the Patriarch of Constantinople as having equal power, dignity and honour with the Roman pontiff. For who, unless he were out of his mind, doubts that the Roman pontiff, who is the head and universal Pastor of the Church, surpasses all the other pontiffs of the Church in power and authority? Hence blessed Gregory, writing to John, bishop of Syracuse, and it is found in the chapter De Constantinopolitana, dist. XXII.:

³⁸²

There is no doubt that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See, which the Emperor Justinian also most openly intimates in the Authentica in the place noted above. From which it follows, clearer than light, how openly this comes against the profession of the Catholic faith; since, according to the institution of Christ and the ancient canons, the Greeks and the Latins professed in this synod, with reverence, that the bishop of Constantinople should not name himself universal and Oecumenical, or orbicular, Patriarch. Reason itself plainly opposes this title, and the unity of the Church, and the disposition of the Gospel, and the common faith of all Catholics, as even anyone of little learning understands. Against this intolerable rashness of a proud title there exist many illustrious and most vigorous letters of holy memory of Pelagius and of Saint Gregory, concerning which in ch. Nullus and ch. Ecce, dist. XCIX. SAVING, NAMELY, ALL PRIVILEGES etc. For the privileges of churches and monasteries, instituted by the authority of the holy fathers, ought by no wickedness to be torn away, nor changed by any novelty. Blessed Anacletus says in ch. Privilegia, XXV, q. II. There are four privileges of the Patriarchs. The first is that, after they receive the pallium from the Apostolic See, they confer the pallium on the Metropolitans who are under them. The second is that they receive the oath of fidelity and obedience on their own behalf and on behalf of the Roman Church. The third is that they cause the cross to be carried before them everywhere, except where the pope is, or his Legate using papal insignia, and except in the city of Rome. The fourth is that appeal is made to them, the intermediate steps being omitted. All these things are found in Extra, De privilegiis, ch. Antiqua, in the text and in the Gloss, especially that of Innocent. THEIR RIGHTS. For the Apostolic See so retains its own vigour that it does not diminish the rights which it has granted to others, says blessed Gregory in ch. Quanto, dist. LXIII, and in ch. De ecclesiasticis, L, q. II. Just as we defend our own rights, so we preserve the rights of each and every church.

Given at Florence³⁸³ in the public synodal session, solemnly in the cathedral church³⁸⁴, celebrated in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand four hundred and thirty-nine, on the day before the nones of July, in the ninth year of our pontificate.

Note the agreement of the name of the place in which the work of this holy union and peace of the Church was brought to completion and perfection. For the holy Church, the spouse of Christ herself, says in the Song, ch. I: "Our bed is flowery"; where the Gloss says: the peace of the Church flourishes by its virtues.

For although the house of the Friars Preachers, which is founded under the title of Saint Mary Novella, and in which, because of the size and beauty of the place, is the dwelling of our most holy lord, had been appointed as the place for the synodal assembly, nevertheless, since the whole populace and the magistrates of the city were expected to gather to hear the conclusion of this most desired union, by order of our most holy lord Eugene, with the fathers of the same holy synod assenting, it was ordained that this session be celebrated in the cathedral church, for its greater capacity.

These things, most blessed Father, which occur to be said for the present for the declaration of the truth and the defence of the authority of those things which were defined by your Beatitude in the Decree of Union with the Greeks, I shall, if they seem to your wisdom to have been said sufficiently, give joyful thanks to Almighty God. But if less, let your holiness, who are prince, doctor and head of all orthodox doctrine, order those things to be supplied and corrected.

Here ends the Apparatus of the Lord Cardinal of Saint Sixtus, on the Decree of the Union of the Greeks at Florence.

³⁸⁵ FLORENCE. ³⁸⁶ IN THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH.

SUBSCRIPTIONS OF THE FATHERS WHO TOOK PART WITH OUR MOST HOLY LORD EUGENE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE PRESENT DECREE.

I, Eugene, bishop of the Catholic Church, defining thus, have subscribed.

I, Antony, bishop of Ostia, Cardinal of Bologna, affirm the aforesaid definitions to be Catholic, and have subscribed to them.

I, Branda, bishop of Porto, have signed.

I, Nicholas, Cardinal of Santa Croce, have signed.

I, Francis, Cardinal priest of the title of Saint Clement, have signed.

I, Angelotus, Cardinal priest of the title of Saint Mark, have signed.

I, Julian, Cardinal priest of the title of Saint Sabina, have signed.

I, Prosper, Cardinal deacon of Saint George, have signed.

I, Dominic, Cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Via Lata, have subscribed.

I, Blasius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, have signed.

I, Mark, Patriarch of Grado, have signed.

I, John, bishop of Morinensis, orator of the most illustrious prince, the lord Duke of Burgundy and of Brabant, have subscribed.

I, John, bishop of Nivernensis, orator of the same lord Duke, have signed and was present.

I, Bartholomew, archbishop of Spalato, have subscribed.

I, Fantinus, archbishop of Crete, have subscribed.

I, Julian, archbishop of Pisa, have subscribed.

I, Andrew, archbishop of Collossensis, have subscribed.

I, Nicholas, archbishop of Capua, have subscribed.

I, Louis, archbishop of Florence, have subscribed.

I, Latinus de Ursis, archbishop of Trani, have subscribed.

I, Raymond, archbishop of Conezanus, have subscribed.

I, James, bishop of Adria, have subscribed.

I, Peter, bishop of Padua, have subscribed.

I, Daniel, bishop of Concordia, have subscribed.

I, Antony, bishop of Portugal, have subscribed.

I, Bartholomew, bishop of Valva, have subscribed.

I, Thomas, bishop of Fara, have subscribed.

I, Christopher, bishop of Rimini, have subscribed.

I, Amicus, bishop of Aquileia, have subscribed.

I, Peter, bishop of Diguen, have subscribed.

I, John, bishop of Ferrara, have subscribed.

I, Valentine, bishop of Orte and Castellum, have subscribed.

I, John, bishop of Arbe.

I, Benotius, bishop of Phesularum, have subscribed.

I, Garolus, bishop of Siena, have subscribed.

I, Andrew, a Spaniard, bishop of Portugal, Magar, have subscribed.

I, Charles, formerly bishop of Modena, have subscribed.

I, Nicholas, bishop of Tivoli, have subscribed.

I, Artholus, bishop of Grass., have subscribed.

I, Laurentius, bishop of Archaien.

I, Canonus of the bishop of Baiocen.

I, Louis, bishop of Treviso, have subscribed.

I, John de Mella, elect confirmed of Legion., have subscribed.

I, William, elect confirmed of Andegavensis, have subscribed.

I, Angelus, bishop of Parentin., have subscribed.

I, Damian, bishop of Assinen., have subscribed.

I, Peter, bishop of Ansaren., have subscribed.

I, Matthew, bishop of Zapaten., have subscribed.

I, Angelus de Grassis, bishop of Arian., have subscribed.

I, Peter, bishop of Massanas., have subscribed.

I, Bartholomew, bishop of Cavalicen., have subscribed.

I, Robert Dexdunaris Dislo., bishop of Vulca., have subscribed.

I, Antony, bishop of Cesena, have subscribed.

I, Donatus, bishop of Pistoia, have subscribed.

I, Scipio, bishop of Modena, have subscribed.

I, Christopher, bishop of Coron., have subscribed.

I, Andrew, bishop of Conversanus, have subscribed.

I, Alexis, bishop of Chiusi, have subscribed.

I, Garcia, bishop of Tuy, have subscribed.

I, S., bishop of Ganaten., have subscribed.

I, Aymeric, bishop of Montis Regalis, have subscribed.

I, Baptista, elect of Theatinus, have subscribed.

I, Nicholas, bishop of Tricharien., have subscribed.

I, John, elect of Agaven., have subscribed.

I, John, elect of Osilien., have subscribed.

I, William, elect of Leoren., have subscribed.

I, Andrew, bishop of Roslumen., have subscribed.

I, Matthew, bishop of Cortona, have subscribed.

I, Julian, elect of Citariden., have subscribed.

I, John, bishop of Converpen., have subscribed.

I, Thaddeus, bishop of Acesnaten., have subscribed.

I, Peter, cleric, archdeacon of Trecen., ambassador of the lord Duke of Burgundy and of Brabant, have subscribed.

I, Ambrose, general of the Camaldolese order, have subscribed.

I, Gometius, abbot of Florence. ss.

I, John de Ursis, of Farisen. ss.

I, Antony, abbot of Saint Caprasius, ss.

I, Francis, abbot of Saint Leonard, ss.

I, Frederick, abbot of Borto. ss.

I, George, abbot of Fereallis. ss.

I, Antony, abbot of Alfolo, ss.

I, Bartholomew, abbot of Campi Fullonis. ss.

I, Sepulcrus, abbot of Vrano. ss.

I, Angelus, abbot of Septimo. ss.

I, Paschal, abbot of the Holy Sepulchre, ss.

I, Benedict, abbot of Conco. ss.

I, James, abbot of Saint Salinus, have subscribed.

I, Alvisus, abbot of Saint Paul ad Ripam, Arnipisam, have subscribed.

I, John, abbot of Thiro, have subscribed.

I, Daniel, abbot of Saniliano, have subscribed.

I, Benedict, abbot of Saint Pancras, have subscribed.

I, Francis, abbot of Santa Maria de Pancriano, have subscribed.

I, John Ginavant., abbot of R. polis, have subscribed.

I, Angelus, abbot of Saint Michael of Pistoia, have subscribed.

I, Nicholas, abbot of the monastery of Saint Modestus, have subscribed.

I, James, abbot of Saint Saviour of Fenzot. ss.

I, A., abbot of Montispian., of the diocese of Pistoia. ss.

I, Peter, abbot of Saint Peter of Florence. ss.

I, M., abbot of Santa Maria de Diciano. ss.

I, Gantellemen, abbot of Bibena. ff.

I, Laurentius, abbot del Culres.

I, Frederick, abbot of the monastery of Saint Pantaleon of Lucca.

I, Lucas, abbot of Stuant. in the Alps.

I, Tonus Lucas, abbot of Patrariat.

I, James, abbot of the monastery of Saint Peter of Massa.

I, Brother John, abbot of the holy martyrs of Cordubicen.

I, William, abbot of Saint Saviour of Burdegalen.

I, George, abbot of Saint Peter of Eugubio.

I, Antony, abbot of Saint Saviour and of Vigilius of Sen.

I, Abbot of Santa Maria de Morona.

I, Abbot of Santa Gaude.

I, Gabriel, abbot of Saint James of Pontida.

I, Dionysius, abbot of Santa Maria de Sandin Sagien.

I, Timothy, abbot of Saint Andrew of Mantua. ss.

I, Brother William, General of the Friars Minor.

I, Brother Berard, General of the Augustinians.

I, Placid, General of Vallombrosa.

Blondus.

SUBSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREEKS.

John Palaeologus, faithful king and Emperor of the Romans in Christ God.

I, Antony, humble archbishop of Heraclea, presiding over the Ypertinarum and first of all Macedonia, and locum tenens of the Apostolic See of the most holy Patriarch³⁸⁷ of Alexandria, Philotheus, Patriarch of Alexandria, have subscribed.

I, Gregory, holy monk, great protosyncellus and spiritual, and Vicar of the Apostolic See of our lord Philotheus, Patriarch of Alexandria. ss.

I, Isidore, archbishop of Gebien. and of all Russia, and locum tenens of the Apostolic See of the most holy Patriarch of Antioch, lord Dorotheus, affirming and defining. ff.

I, Dorotheus, archbishop, locum tenens of the Apostolic See of the most holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, Joachim. ss.

I, Dorotheus, archbishop of Trebizond, following. ss.

I, Metrophanes, archbishop of Cyzicus. ss.

I, Bessarion, by divine mercy archbishop of Nicaea, following. ss.

I, Macarius, archbishop of Nicomedia. ss.

I, Methodius, humble archbishop of Lacedaemon. ff.

I, Ignatius, archbishop of Tornoni, following. fl.

I, Dorotheus, archbishop of Mytilene, locum tenens of the archbishop of Sidia, following. ff.

I, Damian, archbishop of Moldo-Wallachia and locum tenens of the archbishop of Sebaste. fl.

I, Joasaph, humble archbishop of Amasea. fl.

I, Bathanoel, archbishop of Rhodes and of the islands of the Cyclades. ff.

I, Callistus, archbishop of Drilte, following. ff.

I, Matthew, archbishop of Mellenici, following. fl.

I, Gevadius, archbishop of Gavi, following. fl.

I, Bessarion, archbishop of Nicaea, by written mandate, and subscribed by Manuel, the great sacellarius Chrysococces, his deacon, to be subscribed here at his deposition: I here show that these same things seem right to us and that we consent to them, and all who are here follow this; Theodore the Grand Skeuophylax Xanthopoulos, deacon. ff.

I, Michael Balsamon, great chartophylax, archdeacon. ff.

I, S.lueiter Siopolus, great ecclesiarch and dikaiophylax. fl.

I, George Capedotius, prothedicus, deacon. ff.

I, Constantine, first presbyter and vicar of Moldo-Wallachia. ff.

I, Moses, holy monk, venerable ecclesiarch and holy royal of the holy mountain of the great Lavra, and its locum tenens. ff.

I, Dorotheus, holy monk, venerable vicar of the holy mountain of the holy great monastery of Vatopedi. fl.

I, Gerontius, holy monk, formerly prior of the venerable holy royal mountain of Christ almighty. ff.

I, Athanasius, abbot of the monastery of Circunspecti. ff.

I, Germanus, formerly abbot of Saint Basil. ff.

I, Pachomius, holy monk and abbot of Saint Paul, have subscribed.

THE END.

VENICE, at the press of Michael Tramezinus,

M D L X I.