II - On the Error of Joachim

On the Error of Joachim

Lateran Council IV, ch. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In which determination indeed he does six things.

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

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

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

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

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

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