{"slug":"stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-csel:stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1","title":"De Gratia Libri Duo","title_source":"De Gratia Libri Duo","author":"Faustus of Riez","genre":"treatise","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation is known: a language model asked twice could name none, and the source corpus records none. That is not proof — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:43:24Z","cost_usd":0.061771},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-csel:stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-csel","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev/blob/master/data/data/stoa0121g/stoa001/stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":129,"english_words":32978,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":129034,"commentary_units":750,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":4,"ambiguities":194,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1","abstract":"Faustus of Riez's De Gratia (On Grace), written circa 473–480, is a Latin treatise defending a synergistic view of grace and free will against strict predestinarianism. Composed in a rhetorical, polemical register, it responds to the monk Lucidus and draws heavily on scripture and patristic authorities. The work survives in a single medieval manuscript with lacunae in the second book and was condemned at the Second Council of Orange (529) for its semi-Pelagian tendencies, yet continued to be copied in monastic circles.","historical_context":"Faustus of Riez, a key figure in the semi-Pelagian controversy, wrote De Gratia in Gaul around 473–480, during a period of theological debate following the Council of Arles (c. 473). The treatise addresses the monk Lucidus, who advocated a deterministic view of grace, which Faustus linked to pagan fate and Manichaeism. The work was later condemned at the Second Council of Orange (529) for its Pelagianizing tendencies, but it survived in a single manuscript (now at the Bibliothèque nationale de France) with lacunae in the second book. A lost manuscript from Corbie may have contained variant readings. The text was copied and read in monastic circles despite its condemnation, reflecting ongoing tensions in Gallic Christianity over grace and free will.","significance":"De Gratia is a central document in the semi-Pelagian controversy, illustrating the theological conflicts in late antique Gaul. It was later criticized by Caesarius of Arles and the Council of Orange (529), which shaped Western doctrines of grace. The work's survival and continued copying in monastic settings highlight its enduring influence despite official condemnation.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 473–480","event":"Faustus of Riez writes De Gratia in Gaul, responding to the monk Lucidus's predestinarianism."},{"date":"c. 473","event":"Council of Arles (or similar Gallic synod) addresses predestinarian controversies, context for Faustus's work."},{"date":"529","event":"Second Council of Orange condemns De Gratia for its semi-Pelagian tendencies."},{"date":"6th–9th c.","event":"The text is copied and read in monastic circles despite condemnation."},{"date":"Medieval","event":"Single surviving manuscript produced, now at Bibliothèque nationale de France, with lacunae in book two."},{"date":"Unknown","event":"Lost manuscript of Corbie may have contained variant readings."}],"relations":[{"work":"Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings","relation":"Faustus uses hierarchical language similar to Augustine but argues for cooperation between grace and human effort.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pelagius's works","relation":"Faustus counters Pelagius's emphasis on human effort with a model of grace as a pupil bound by servitude.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Orange (529)","relation":"Condemned De Gratia for its Pelagianizing tendencies.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Caesarius of Arles's writings","relation":"Caesarius later criticized Faustus's views.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Lucidus's predestinarian teachings","relation":"Faustus's treatise directly responds to Lucidus's strict predestinarianism.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The exact date of composition is uncertain; the range 473–480 is based on the context of the semi-Pelagian controversy.","The text survives in a single manuscript with lacunae in the second book, and a lost manuscript from Corbie may have contained variant readings, affecting reconstruction of the original argument.","The specific council referenced in the text (e.g., Council of Arles c. 473) is not named, so its identification is tentative."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000504,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:43:23Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin CSEL","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev/blob/master/data/data/stoa0121g/stoa001/stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0121g.stoa001.opp-lat1","status":"warn","blocking":[],"warnings":[{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"29","kind":"scripture"},{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"42","kind":"scripture"},{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"48","kind":"scripture"},{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"56","kind":"scripture"}],"stats":{"passages":129,"translated":129,"commentary_passages":129,"commentary_units":750,"english_words":32978,"source_letters":129034,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustus of Riez wrote De Gratia ca. 473–480, responding to the semi-Pelagian controversy after the Council of Orange (529) had not yet occurred.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in a single medieval manuscript, now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, with lacunae in the second book.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"De Gratia was condemned at the Second Council of Orange (529) for its Pelagianizing tendencies, yet it continued to be copied and read in monastic circles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not collate the variant readings from the lost manuscript of Corbie, which may affect the reconstruction of Faustus’s original argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustus writes in a rhetorical, polemical register, employing frequent scriptural citations and patristic authorities to defend his view of grace and free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise responds to the monk Lucidus, who had advocated a strict predestinarianism; Faustus argues for a synergistic cooperation of grace and human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation is known: a language model asked twice could name none, and the source corpus records none. That is not proof — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: treatise in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 129 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"3 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 4:10."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-csel — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":129},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"PROLOGUS.\n\nPROFESSIO FIDEI CONTRA EOS, QVI, DUM PER SOLAM DEI UOLUN- TATEM ALIOS DICUNT AD UITAM ADTRAHI, ALIOS IN MORTEM DEPRIMI, HINC FATUM CUM GENTILIBUS ASSERUNT, INDE LIBERUM ARBITRIUM CUM MANICHAEIS NEGANT.\n\nDOMINO BEATISSIMO AC REUERENTISSIMO LEONTIO PAPAE FACSTUS.\n\nQuod pro sollicitudine pastorali, beate papa Leonti, in condemnando praedestinationis errore concilium summorum antistitum congregastis, uniuersis Galliarum ecclesiis praestitistis. quod uero ad ordinanda ea, quae conlatione publica doctissime protulistis, operam infirmis humeris curamque mandastis, parum, ut reor, tanto negotio, parum sanctae existimationi uestrae consuluistis, me iudicio caritatis, uos periculo electionis onerastis. quia ergo. et uestram laborare personam sub inposito nobis fasce cognoscitis, communem causam hoc loco agitis, si ei, quem opinione uestra inparem cernitis, manum suffragii porrigatis. studium asserendae gratiae conpetenter et salubriter suscipit qui oboedientiam famuli laboris adiungit, tamquam si patrono uel domino inseparabiliter pedisequus minister inhaereat. quodsi unum sine altero erit, aut inhonorus absque seruo dominus apparebit aut seruus domini locum conditionis inmemor occupabit. recte ergo inter adiuuantem pariter et adnitentem ordo iste seruabitur, ut hic teneat pleno iure dominatum et ille tota reddat subiectione seruitium.","english":"PROLOGUE.\n\nA PROFESSION OF FAITH AGAINST THOSE WHO, WHILE CLAIMING THAT SOME ARE DRAWN TO LIFE AND OTHERS DRIVEN TO DEATH BY THE WILL OF GOD ALONE, THEREBY ASSERT FATE WITH THE PAGANS ON THE ONE HAND, AND DENY FREE WILL WITH THE MANICHAEANS ON THE OTHER.\n\nTO THE MOST BLESSED AND MOST REVEREND LORD LEONTIUS THE POPE, FAUSTUS.\n\nThat you, blessed Pope Leontius, out of pastoral solicitude, gathered a council of the highest bishops to condemn the error of predestination, you have done for all the churches of the Gauls. But that you entrusted the work and care of ordering those matters which you set forth most learnedly in the public conference to my weak shoulders, you have, as I think, consulted too little for so great a business, too little for your holy reputation; you have burdened me with the judgment of charity, yourselves with the peril of choice. Therefore, since you know that your own person labors under the burden imposed upon us, you are acting in a common cause in this matter, if you extend the hand of support to one whom you judge by your opinion to be unequal to the task. He undertakes the task of asserting grace competently and salutarily who joins the obedience of a servant's labor, as if an inseparable attendant minister clings to a patron or master. But if one should be without the other, either the master will appear dishonored without a servant, or the servant, forgetful of his condition, will usurp the master's place. Rightly, therefore, between the one who aids and the one who strives, this order will be preserved: that the former holds dominion by full right, and the latter renders service in full subjection.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"PROLOGUS","severity":"info","text":"The work opens with a formal prologue, a common feature in late antique Latin treatises, here serving as a dedicatory preface to Pope Leontius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praedestinationis errore","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'error of predestination' refers to the teaching Faustus opposes, often associated with a deterministic view of grace that he links to pagan fate and Manichaean denial of free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"concilium summorum antistitum","severity":"info","text":"This likely refers to the Council of Arles (c. 473) or a similar Gallic synod convened to address predestinarian controversies, though the exact council is not named in the text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus of Riez was a key figure in the semi-Pelagian controversy; his work was later criticized by figures like Caesarius of Arles and the Council of Orange (529).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"aut inhonorus absque seruo dominus apparebit aut seruus domini locum conditionis inmemor occupabit","severity":"info","text":"The master-servant analogy echoes similar hierarchical language in Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings, though Faustus uses it to argue for cooperation between divine grace and human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Pope Leontius is uncertain; he may be Leontius of Arles (c. 470–485) or another bishop, but the text does not specify his see."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"augebitur autem dignitas imperantis, si ei semper praesto sit sedulitas obsequentis. socientur ima summis sicque socientur, ut subiciantur utique, non aequentur. sed sicut deesse non conuenit gubernatori remigem suum, sacerdoti ministrum suum, imperatori militem suum, ita oportet ut gratia alumna oboedientia inseparabili seruitute conexa sit. uerum quia Pelagius nudum laborem inportunius exaltat et humanam demens infirmitatem sine gratia sibi posse sufficere stulte credidit, impie praedicauit elationis turrem in caelum conatus erigere, blasphemias eius breui sermone praestringere et confutare necessarium iudicaui- ' mus, ne forte is, qui donum laboris, id est praeceptum iubentis excludit, asserentibus nobis, quod dei misericordia fide et operibus promerenda est, catholicam uocem ad Pelagii sensum discretionis nescius adplicaret et omissa uia regia in dexteram cadens in sinistram declinare nos crederet, et, dum de labore seruo gratiae loquimur, offendiculum ante pedes caeci opposuisse uideremur. cum autem mentionem de opere ac labore fecerimus, prophetae, apostoli, euangelistae et uerbis utemur et sensibus. quibus si quis contraire praesumpserit, non nostra inuenta destruere, sed caelestia sine dubio iura dissoluere et . fidei subruere fundamenta tentabit.","english":"The dignity of the commander will be increased, if the diligence of the subordinate is always at hand. Let the low be joined with the high, and joined in such a way that they are indeed subjected, not made equal. But just as it is not fitting for a helmsman to lack his rower, a priest his minister, an emperor his soldier, so it is necessary that grace be bound to obedience, its pupil, by an inseparable servitude. However, because Pelagius too importunately exalts naked labor and, in his madness, foolishly believed that human weakness could suffice for itself without grace, and impiously preached, attempting to erect a tower of pride to heaven, I judged it necessary to circumscribe and confute his blasphemies in a brief discourse, lest perhaps he who excludes the gift of labor, that is, the precept of the one commanding, should, when we assert that God’s mercy is to be merited by faith and works, ignorantly apply the Catholic voice to the sense of Pelagius, and, abandoning the royal road, falling to the right, believe that we decline to the left, and, while we speak of the labor of the servant to grace, we might seem to have placed an obstacle before the feet of the blind. But when we make mention of work and labor, we will use both the words and the senses of the prophet, the apostle, the evangelist. If anyone presumes to contradict these, he will attempt not to destroy our inventions, but without doubt to dissolve the divine laws and to undermine the foundations of the faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia alumna oboedientia inseparabili seruitute conexa sit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus subordinates obedience to grace as a pupil (alumna) bound by inseparable servitude, a hierarchical model that counters Pelagius' emphasis on human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"Here 'gratia' denotes divine assistance, distinct from Pelagius' 'nudum laborem'; Faustus insists grace and obedience are conjoined, not grace alone or works alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Pelagius (c. 354–418) taught that human will could achieve righteousness without grace; Faustus refutes this, aligning with Augustine's anti-Pelagian stance but later accused of semi-Pelagianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"prophetae, apostoli, euangelistae","severity":"info","text":"Faustus invokes the authority of prophets, apostles, and evangelists as sources for his argument, though no specific verse is quoted; this is a general appeal to scriptural tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"uerum quia Pelagius ... necessarium iudicaui- ' mus","severity":"info","text":"The passage transitions from a positive statement of grace-obedience hierarchy to a polemical refutation of Pelagius, signaled by 'uerum quia' (but because).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"catholicam uocem ad Pelagii sensum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus fears his own orthodox language might be misread as Pelagian; this anticipates later controversies where his views were deemed semi-Pelagian by critics like Prosper of Aquitaine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'iudicaui- ' mus' shows a textual break; the manuscript may have 'iudicauimus' (we judged) or 'iudicaui' (I judged); the English draft reads 'I judged', but the plural could be an epistolary or inclusive 'we'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"latius utcumque sermonem de praescientia et praedestinatione produximus, ut quae putabantur obscura absolutiora tardioribus redderentur. non autem aliquos, qui uerborum phaleris delectantur, offendat, quod testimoniorum uirtute contenti absque sublimitate sermonis lucem protulimus ueritatis, in quo quidem opusculo post Arelatensis concilii subscriptionem nouis erroribus deprehensis adici aliqua synodus Lugdunensis exegit.\n\nLIBER PRIMUS.\n\nQVOD PELAGII SENSUS, QVI GRATIAM NEGAUIT, PRIMO LOCO NECESSE SIT DESTRUI.\n\nDe gratia dei et tenuitate liberi arbitrii inluminante sancto spiritu iuxta euangelicas disciplinas et apostolicas regulas tractaturi primo loco Pelagii blasphemias scilicet iam dudum ecclesiae catholicae fide proditas, eruditione confusas, auctoritate calcatas breui et necessario sermone praestringendas esse credidimus, pro eo quod inter reliquas dogmatis sui abominationes etiam laborem hominis ualere posse sine gratia elatione damnabili adfirmare conatus est. et ideo nefarios sensus suos uel ex parte aliqua in medium proferre curabimus, ut sollicitus ++ quisque cognoscat multo aliud esse salutari gratiae officium laboris adiungere, aliud uero nudum absque patrocinio gratiae laborem temeritate una cordis asserere.","english":"We have drawn out the discourse on foreknowledge and predestination at some length, so that what were thought obscure might be rendered clearer to the slower. But let no one who delights in verbal embellishments be offended that, content with the force of testimonies, we have brought forth the light of truth without sublimity of speech; in which little work, after the subscription of the Council of Arles, when new errors were detected, the Synod of Lyons required that some things be added.\n\nBOOK ONE.\n\nTHAT THE OPINION OF PELAGIUS, WHO DENIED GRACE, MUST FIRST OF ALL BE DESTROYED.\n\nTreating of the grace of God and the weakness of free will, with the Holy Spirit enlightening us according to the evangelical disciplines and apostolic rules, we believed that in the first place the blasphemies of Pelagius—already long since betrayed by the faith of the Catholic Church, confounded by learning, trampled by authority—ought to be touched upon in a brief and necessary discourse, for the reason that among the other abominations of his doctrine he even attempted to affirm, with damnable pride, that human effort could avail without grace. And therefore we shall take care to bring forward his nefarious opinions, at least in part, so that each attentive person may recognize that it is one thing to join the office of labor to saving grace, but quite another to assert bare effort without the patronage of grace by the rashness of the heart alone.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Arelatensis concilii subscriptionem","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Arles (likely ca. 473) condemned certain predestinarian errors; Faustus himself presided. The subscription refers to the formal approval of its decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"synodus Lugdunensis","severity":"info","text":"The Synod of Lyons (ca. 475) reviewed Faustus’s work and required additions to address new errors, probably those of the predestinarians. This synod gave the treatise its final form.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses gratia in the sense of divine grace necessary for salvation, contrasting it with mere human effort (labor). The term is central to his anti-Pelagian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libert arbitrii tenuitas","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'weakness of free will' (tenuitas liberi arbitrii) signals Faustus’s semi-Pelagian position: free will is real but enfeebled, requiring grace to be effective.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"LIBER PRIMUS","severity":"info","text":"This marks the beginning of Book One. The work is divided into two books; the first systematically refutes Pelagius, the second addresses predestinarian errors.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagii blasphemias","severity":"info","text":"Faustus’s characterization of Pelagius as already 'trampled by authority' reflects the post-418 consensus; yet his own views were later condemned as semi-Pelagian at the Council of Orange (529).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'post Arelatensis concilii subscriptionem' could mean after the council’s decrees were signed or after the council itself; the sense is that new errors emerged subsequently.","The identity of the 'new errors' (novis erroribus) is not specified; they likely refer to extreme predestinarianism, possibly associated with Lucidus."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Hic ergo dum altius humanam fragilitatem inmemor diuini timoris extollit, iudicii sui perdidit sanitatem (et) ita ex parte alia cecidit, dum arbitrii libertatem integram praedicat et inlaesam, sicut illi, qui eam ex toto asserunt fuisse euacuatam. hoc itaque loco gemini inter se conluctantur errores, quorum unus solam gratiam, alter solum laborem relicto tramite atque mensura ueritatis insinuat. sectarum genere dispares, sed inpietate consimiles diuerso quidem studio, sed spiritu unius serpentis insibilant. quorum unus, id est solius gratiae praedicator prima quidem fronte uenenum suum sub specie pietatis occultat, alter, id est laboris assertor protinus extantem tumorem inproba elatione manifestat. haec professio insinuando solum laborem ipso sui titulo detestanda, illa magis sub religioso colore metuenda est. haec sacrilegium suum ipsis auribus prodit, illa uirus suum imis uisceribus paene antequam sentiatur infundit. duos angustum obsidere fretum scopulos putes, quorum unus subdeprimitur in profundum, alter minatur in caelum. unus infestus nauigantibus cernitur, alter caeca naufragia inprouisus operatur. ille gratiam loquitur, hic laborem. utrumque eloquia diuina confirmant. si dissidentes remoueas et dicta coniungas, plena fidei sinceritas apparebit.","english":"Here, therefore, while it exalts human frailty too high, unmindful of divine fear, it has lost the soundness of its judgment and has fallen to the other side, just as those who assert that free will was entirely nullified, while it preaches free will as whole and unharmed. In this place, therefore, twin errors wrestle with each other, one of which insinuates only grace, the other only labor, having abandoned the path and measure of truth. They are of different kinds of sects, but alike in impiety; they hiss with diverse zeal, but with the spirit of a single serpent. One of them, that is, the preacher of grace alone, at first conceals its poison under the appearance of piety; the other, that is, the assertor of labor, immediately manifests its swelling tumor with shameless pride. This profession, by insinuating only labor, is detestable by its very title; that one is more to be feared under a religious color. This one betrays its sacrilege to the ears themselves; that one pours its poison into the innermost vitals almost before it is felt. You would think them two rocks besetting a narrow strait, one of which is submerged in the deep, the other threatens the sky. One is seen as dangerous to sailors; the other works unseen shipwrecks. That one speaks of grace, this one of labor. Both are confirmed by divine eloquence. If you remove the dissenting parts and join the sayings, the full sincerity of faith will appear.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"gemini inter se conluctantur errores","severity":"info","text":"Faustus frames the two errors (grace-only and labor-only) as a pair of wrestling opponents, a rhetorical device that structures the entire passage as a balanced antithesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam ... laborem","severity":"info","text":"Gratia (grace) and labor (human effort) are the two poles of Faustus’s argument; he rejects both extremes, advocating a middle path that combines divine gift and human striving.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"spiritu unius serpentis insibilant","severity":"info","text":"The image of a single serpent hissing through both errors echoes patristic polemic (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies) that portrays heresies as diverse but stemming from one diabolical source.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Irenaeus c. 180"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"duos angustum obsidere fretum scopulos","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of two rocks in a narrow strait—one submerged, one visible—recalls the Scylla and Charybdis topos, used by earlier Latin authors (e.g., Horace, Odes 1.27) to depict a dilemma between two dangers.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Horace 23 BCE"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"si dissidentes remoueas et dicta coniungas, plena fidei sinceritas apparebit","severity":"info","text":"This call to harmonize grace and labor anticipates the later semi-Pelagian controversy; Faustus’s solution was condemned at the Council of Orange (529) for compromising divine grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Council of Orange 529"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Hic ergo dum altius humanam fragilitatem inmemor diuini timoris extollit","severity":"caution","text":"The subject of 'extollit' is ambiguous: it may refer to the 'preacher of grace alone' (implied from the previous passage) or to a generic error; the Latin lacks an explicit antecedent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The subject of 'extollit' is not explicit; likely the 'preacher of grace alone' from the preceding context, but the Latin leaves it unclear.","The phrase 'sicut illi, qui eam ex toto asserunt fuisse euacuatam' could refer to a specific group (e.g., Manichaeans) or a generic extreme position."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"sed quia uelut temerarii remiges sine magistro inexplorato mari uela conmittunt ac temperare moderamina nesciunt et gubernacula tractare non norunt, hic tamquam in Scyllae male dextrum fertur periclum, ille in laeuum Charybdis tendit abruptum. et quid eos inter haec facere oporteat, si requiras: prouiso gubernatore nauem fluctibus credant, medium teneant cursum et ambo flatu dextro perducentur ad portum.\n\nVideamus, cui impietati geminum hunc errorem adsimilare uel conferre possimus. pari modo in petram scandali offendunt uel illi, qui Christum dominum solum deum, uel illi, qui solum hominem amissa discretionis luce asserere praesumpserunt. paene utraque nimietas, dum discretionem atque discrimen tenere nescit, aequale crimen incurrit. proinde qui Christum solum hominem dixerit, negauit auctoris potentiam, qui solum deum, perdidit misericordiam redemptoris. ac sic, qui unam in domino saluatore substantiam confitentur, in hanc constringentur necessitatem, ut aut solum hominem caelo lapsum aut solum deum cogantur dicere crucifixum. sed non ita est. mortem enim nec solus deus sentire nec solus homo superare potuisset et ideo eam pro geminae ratione substantiae homo suscepit et deus uicit.","english":"But because, like reckless oarsmen without a pilot, they commit their sails to an uncharted sea and know neither how to temper the rudder nor how to handle the helm, one is borne toward the peril on the right, as it were, of Scylla, the other rushes into the abyss on the left of Charybdis. And if you should ask what they ought to do in these straits: let them entrust the ship to the waves with a pilot provided, hold a middle course, and with a favorable wind on the right, they will be brought to port.\n\nLet us see to what impiety we may liken or compare this twin error. In a similar way, those who have presumed to assert either that Christ the Lord is only God, or that He is only man, having lost the light of discernment, stumble upon the rock of scandal. Almost each excess, because it does not know how to maintain discernment and distinction, incurs an equal fault. Therefore, whoever says that Christ is only man has denied the power of the Author; whoever says He is only God has lost the mercy of the Redeemer. And thus, those who confess one substance in the Lord and Savior will be constrained by this necessity, that they are forced to say either that only a man fell from heaven or that only God was crucified. But it is not so. For neither could only God suffer death, nor could only man overcome it, and therefore, by reason of the twofold nature, man underwent it and God conquered it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Scyllae ... Charybdis","severity":"info","text":"The Scylla and Charybdis metaphor, drawn from Homeric epic, was a standard patristic trope for steering between two heresies. Faustus uses it to frame the twin errors of overemphasizing grace or free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"pari modo in petram scandali offendunt","severity":"info","text":"Faustus compares the grace–free will debate to Christological heresies: those asserting Christ is only God or only man. This mirrors the structure of earlier Latin anti-heretical works, e.g., by Hilary of Poitiers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"geminae ratione substantiae","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'geminae ratione substantiae' (by reason of the twofold substance) echoes the Chalcedonian language of two natures in Christ. Faustus applies this Christological model to argue that grace and human effort cooperate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Videamus, cui impietati geminum hunc errorem adsimilare uel conferre possimus","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a transition from the nautical metaphor to a Christological analogy. Faustus signals a comparative analysis, a common rhetorical move in late antique theological polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"qui unam in domino saluatore substantiam confitentur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus critiques those who confess 'one substance' in Christ, likely targeting miaphysite positions. This reflects the post-Chalcedonian context of the late 5th century, when Faustus wrote.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'prouiso gubernatore' could mean either 'with a pilot provided' or 'with a pilot foreseen'; the translation adopts the former as more natural in context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"si ergo partibus proprietates suas reddas et Christum deum simul atque hominem credas et asseras, perinde est ac si gratiam cum labore coniungas et ab adiutorio dei conatum hominis non repellas ita tamen, ut adnitentis deuotioni elationis culpam penitus non admisceas, quia, quantum detrimenti est non laborare, tantum periculi de labore praesumere.\n\nDicit ergo Pelagius, quod ad obtinendam salutem natura hominis sibi sola sufficiat. ita haec pestifer doctor adfirmat, quasi adhuc factura conditionis nostrae in statu suo inlibata permaneat. ego arbitror, quod libertas arbitrii sibi sola sufficere sine praesidio gratiae non potuerit, etiam antequam priuilegium illius transgressio prima uiolaret. quomodo uero nunc potest sibi sola sufficere, ad cuius arrogantiam dicitur: quia sine me nihil potestis facere, ad cuius praesumptionem diuinus sermo dirigitur: nisi dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant qui aedificant eam? quod utique elationi sine gratia perficere denegatur, humilitati uero cum gratia inplere conceditur.","english":"If, therefore, you assign to each part its own properties and believe and assert that Christ is both God and man, it is the same as if you join grace with effort and do not repel human striving from the help of God—yet in such a way that you do not mingle the fault of pride with the devotion of the one who strives, because, as much harm as there is in not laboring, so much danger there is in presuming from labor.\n\nPelagius therefore says that for obtaining salvation, human nature alone suffices for itself. Thus this pestilent teacher affirms, as if the condition of our nature still remained unimpaired in its original state. I judge that free will could not suffice for itself without the support of grace, even before the first transgression violated that privilege. How, then, can it now suffice for itself, to whose arrogance it is said: \"Because without me you can do nothing,\" to whose presumption the divine word is directed: \"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain\"? This, indeed, is denied to pride to accomplish without grace, but is granted to humility to fulfill with grace.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam cum labore coniungas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus insists that grace and human effort must be joined, rejecting both Pelagian self-sufficiency and any pride in one's own labor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quia sine me nihil potestis facere","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 15:5, though the exact wording differs; Faustus applies it to rebuke the arrogance of free will without grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nisi dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant qui aedificant eam","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Psalm 127:1 (LXX) or a similar wisdom saying; Faustus uses it to argue that grace is necessary for any fruitful effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Pelagius (c. 354–418) taught that human nature could achieve salvation without divine grace, a view condemned at the Council of Carthage (418). Faustus counters this here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libertas arbitrii","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that free will, even before the Fall, could not suffice without grace—a position that distinguishes him from both Pelagius and later semi-Pelagian controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Dicit ergo Pelagius ... ego arbitror","severity":"info","text":"Faustus sets up a direct contrast between Pelagius's claim and his own judgment, using 'ergo' to mark the opponent's conclusion and 'ego' for his rebuttal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact source of the scriptural echoes is uncertain; they may be paraphrases or allusions rather than direct quotations."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Prosequitur adhuc Pelagius Adam mortalem factum, qui, sine peccasset siue non peccasset, esset moriturus. sed cum dicat apostolus: propterea, inquit, sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intrauit et per peccatum mors, intellegis, quia, si peccatum non praecessisset, mors secuta non esset et donata inmortalitas perdurasset, quam utique manifestum est sub proposita lege praestitam et cum conditione conlatam, ut, si non recessisset superbus ab oboedientia, permaneret aeternus in gloria. nam cum interdictum caeleste sanxisset dicens: in quacumque die comederitis de ligno scientiae boni et mali, morte moriemini, inliciti gustus malesuada praesumptio facta est ex accidenti mortis occasio. morte, inquit, morieris. si nihil largientis contulit gratia, quid est quod abstulit damnantis offensa? mors itaque, id est peregrinum et aduenticium malum non est ordo naturae, sed poena sententiae. quoniam, inquit, dominus mortem non fecit. aeternitatem creditam fuisse homini liuor ipse testatur inimici et, quia ei inmortalitatem deiectus inuidit, ideo causam mortis ingessit dicendo: in quacumque die comederitis de ligno hoc, aperientur oculi uestri et eritis sicut dii. si hoc tantum dixisset: cum manducaueritis, satietatem de cibi suauitate capietis, usque ad concupiscentiae carnalis inlecebram transgressio peruenisset.","english":"He continues further: Pelagius says that Adam was made mortal, who, whether he had sinned or not, would have died. But since the apostle says: \"Therefore,\" he says, \"just as through one man sin entered this world and through sin death,\" you understand that, if sin had not preceded, death would not have followed, and the granted immortality would have endured, which indeed is manifestly bestowed under a prescribed law and conferred with a condition, so that, if he had not withdrawn in pride from obedience, he would have remained eternal in glory. For when the heavenly prohibition had decreed, saying: \"On whatever day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall die the death,\" the ill-advised presumption of forbidden taste became the accidental occasion of death. \"You shall die,\" it says, \"the death.\" If the grace of the giver contributed nothing, what is it that the offense of the condemner took away? Death, therefore, that is, a foreign and adventitious evil, is not an order of nature, but a penalty of sentence. For, he says, the Lord did not make death. That immortality was entrusted to man is testified by the envy of the enemy himself, and because, cast down, he begrudged him immortality, he therefore introduced the cause of death, saying: \"On whatever day you eat of this tree, your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods.\" If he had only said this: \"When you have eaten, you will experience satiety from the pleasantness of the food,\" the transgression would have reached only the enticement of carnal concupiscence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Prosequitur adhuc Pelagius Adam mortalem factum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus attributes to Pelagius the view that Adam was created mortal, a position Faustus opposes by arguing that death resulted from sin, not nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"propterea, inquit, sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intrauit et per peccatum mors","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 5:12, where Paul links sin and death through Adam's transgression.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in quacumque die comederitis de ligno scientiae boni et mali, morte moriemini","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Genesis 2:17 (LXX) and 3:3, the divine prohibition and penalty for eating the forbidden fruit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"aperientur oculi uestri et eritis sicut dii","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of the serpent's temptation in Genesis 3:5, promising god-like knowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Pelagius (c. 354–418) taught that humans could achieve salvation by free will without divine grace, a view Faustus refutes here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"morte moriemini","severity":"info","text":"The Latin phrase 'morte moriemini' (you shall die the death) is a Hebraism emphasizing the certainty of death as a penalty.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'morte moriemini' could be read as a simple future or an emphatic construction; Faustus takes it as a conditional penalty."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"cum uero hanc praeuaricationis proposuerit finem dicendo: eritis sicut dii, edacitatis culpa usque ad diuinitatis ambitum et usque ad crimen maiestatis accessit. facti sunt ergo sicut dii dono gratiae caelestis exuti et de beatae stationis culmine proturbati, ac sic callidus serpens pro superbiae malo eiectus e caelo machinas sibi ad hominem subruendum de casu proprio lapsuque disposuit et quomodo cecidit, sic decepit.\n\nQuid uero aliud intellegendum est etiam in ipsa, qua homo conditus est, dei imagine nisi perennitatis insigne? quam perennitatem non solum animae non ademptam, sed etiam corpori agnoscis resurrectionis uirtute reparatam. quapropter inmortalitatem homini conmissam non dubites ante culpam, quam reddi perspicis etiam post ruinam.\n\nAsserit ergo Pelagius Adam, siue peccasset siue non peccasset, omnimodis fuisse moriturum. et hoc ex ipsa prauitate descendit, qua negat originale delictum. dum enim adfirmare contendit mort[al]em necessitatem conditionis fuisse, non transgressionis, uult uideri originem huius debiti non a seruo, sed a domino, non a contemptore, sed ab auctore coepisse, ut mortis lex ordinationis credatur esse, non criminis. et hanc lugendam contritionem super humanum genus non praeuaricator putetur transmisisse, sed conditor? et ubi est illud: inuidia autem diaboli mors introiuit in orbem terrarum?","english":"But when he set this end to the transgression by saying, \"You will be like gods,\" the fault of gluttony advanced to the ambition of divinity and even to the crime of treason. Therefore they were made like gods, stripped of the gift of heavenly grace and cast down from the height of their blessed state; and thus the cunning serpent, cast out of heaven for the evil of pride, devised for himself, from his own fall and lapse, engines to overthrow man, and just as he fell, so he deceived.\n\nWhat else, indeed, is to be understood even in the image of God in which man was created, except the emblem of perpetuity?—a perpetuity which you recognize as not only not taken away from the soul, but also restored to the body by the power of resurrection. Therefore, do not doubt that immortality was entrusted to man before the fault, which you see is restored even after the ruin.\n\nTherefore Pelagius asserts that Adam, whether he had sinned or not, would have died in any case. And this proceeds from that very perversity by which he denies original sin. For while he strives to affirm that the necessity of death was a matter of condition, not of transgression, he wishes it to appear that the origin of this debt began not from a servant, but from the Lord, not from a despiser, but from the Creator, so that the law of death is believed to be a matter of ordinance, not of crime. And is this lamentable ruin thought to have been transmitted over the human race not by the transgressor, but by the Creator? And where is that saying: \"Through the envy of the devil, death entered into the world\"?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"eritis sicut dii","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'eritis sicut dii' echoes the serpent's temptation in Genesis 3:5, though the Vulgate reads 'eritis sicut dii' only in some Old Latin traditions; the standard Vulgate has 'eritis sicut dii' in Genesis 3:5.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"inuidia autem diaboli mors introiuit in orbem terrarum","severity":"info","text":"This citation is a loose adaptation of a common patristic paraphrase of Wisdom 2:24, which in the Vulgate reads 'Invidia autem diaboli mors introiit in orbem terrarum'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"edacitatis","severity":"info","text":"'Edacitatis' (gluttony) specifies the sin of Adam and Eve as overeating, a patristic trope linking the Fall to intemperance, not just pride.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"machinas sibi ad hominem subruendum de casu proprio lapsuque disposuit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts the serpent's deception as a mechanical device ('machinas') derived from his own fall, reflecting late antique demonological speculation on the devil's envy and cunning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quid uero aliud intellegendum est","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question marks a transition from the serpent's deception to the theological argument for original immortality, framing the subsequent refutation of Pelagius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's characterization of Pelagius's view—that Adam would have died regardless of sin—was a standard anti-Pelagian argument, later echoed by Augustine and the Council of Orange (529).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'edacitatis' could be read as a specific reference to the forbidden fruit, but Faustus generalizes it to gluttony.","The phrase 'inuidia autem diaboli' is a paraphrase; the exact source is Wisdom 2:24, but the wording varies in patristic citations."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"dum autem peccatum originis denegat, tollit omnino causam, qua redemptor aduenerit. uideamus, utrum per uoluntatem dei an per hominis prauitatem infelix et deflenda conditio initium sumpserit. audi quid tuba personet ueritatis: propterea, inquit, sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intrauit et per peccatum mors, ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccauerunt. dicendo Pelagius Adam mortalem factum in primo facturae ordine constituit mortem, quam pro noxa praeuaricationis tertio gradu constat inpositam. homo enim opus dei, peccatum opus diaboli, mors poena peccati. nam apostolus non dixit: uoluntas dei mors, sed: stipendium peccati mors.\n\nDolos ergo eius in profundo latentes sollicitius inspiciamus. ideo mortem adplicat conditori, ut, de quo potissimum malo initium ducat, non possit agnosci ac sic liberius adfirmet infantes nexu originis non teneri. quod cum dicit, duplici impietate blasphemat, dum et mortem ad auctoris inuidiam reuocat et negando originale uinculum gratiam reparatoris euacuat. itaque ut posset asserere paruulos baptismo non egere, generale peccatum negauit. quo negato hic ordo erroris sui fuit, . ut, unde mors esset generata, nesciret. quid mirum si arborem illam in fructibus non agnoscat, quam noluit in radice cognoscere? quandoquidem causam uulneris subprimit et abscondit gladium, quo uulnus inflictum est.","english":"But when he denies original sin, he entirely removes the cause for which the Redeemer came. Let us see whether the unhappy and lamentable condition took its beginning from the will of God or from the depravity of man. Hear what the trumpet of truth sounds: \"Therefore,\" it says, \"just as through one man sin entered this world, and through sin death, so death passed through to all men, in whom all have sinned.\" By saying that Adam was made mortal in the first order of creation, Pelagius establishes death, which is known to have been imposed as a penalty for the transgression in the third stage. For man is the work of God, sin is the work of the devil, death is the punishment of sin. For the apostle did not say: \"Death is the will of God,\" but: \"Death is the wages of sin.\"\n\nTherefore let us examine more carefully his deceits lurking in the depths. He attributes death to the Creator so that the evil from which it chiefly takes its beginning cannot be recognized, and thus he may more freely assert that infants are not bound by the bond of origin. When he says this, he blasphemes with a double impiety, both by recalling death to the discredit of the Author and by denying the original bond, he empties the grace of the Restorer. And so, in order to be able to assert that little ones do not need baptism, he denied general sin. With this denied, this was the order of his error: that he did not know whence death was generated. What wonder if he does not recognize that tree in its fruits, which he was unwilling to know in its root? Since he suppresses the cause of the wound and conceals the sword by which the wound was inflicted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"propterea, inquit, sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intrauit et per peccatum mors, ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccauerunt","severity":"info","text":"Faustus paraphrases Romans 5:12, a key text for original sin, though the Vulgate reads 'pertransiit' differently. The phrase 'in quo omnes peccaverunt' echoes the Vetus Latina tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"peccatum originis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'peccatum originis' (original sin) is central to Faustus's argument against Pelagius. It denotes inherited sin, not personal sin, and is contrasted with 'generale peccatum' (general sin) later.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Pelagius (c. 354–418) taught that Adam was created mortal and that sin is not inherited, opposing Augustine's doctrine of original sin. Faustus here refutes Pelagian views on mortality and infant baptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Dolos ergo eius in profundo latentes sollicitius inspiciamus","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a transition from refutation to deeper analysis of Pelagius's errors, using the metaphor of hidden deceits ('dolos in profundo latentes') to structure the argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam reparatoris euacuat","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's claim that denying original sin 'empties the grace of the Restorer' (Christ) reflects the semi-Pelagian position that grace is necessary for salvation, a view later condemned at the Council of Orange (529).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"in quo omnes peccauerunt","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'in quo omnes peccaverunt' is ambiguous: 'in quo' could refer to Adam or to death. Faustus likely means 'in whom (Adam) all have sinned,' but the Latin allows alternative readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in quo omnes peccaverunt' is ambiguous: 'in quo' could refer to Adam (the man) or to death (mors). Faustus interprets it as referring to Adam, consistent with his argument for inherited sin.","The term 'generale peccatum' (general sin) is not defined; it may be synonymous with 'peccatum originis' or refer to sin common to all humanity."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"stipendium, inquit, peccati mors. quia intellegere neglexit tanti principem mali, ideo ignorauit inpositam mortis conditionem pedisequam esse peccati, de qua praefati sumus: stipendium peccati mors. dignam secundum tale opus mercedem recepit, tale stipendium meruit qui diabolo militauit. unde uas electionis euidentissime rationem redemptionis ostendit et praedicat dicens: quid enim, cum adhuc infirmi essemus, Christus pro impiis mortuus est? uix enim pro iusto quis moritur. hoc est dicere: si abundasset in terris iustitia, non fuisset e caelis transmissa medicina. sed ut adueniret unica sanitas, generalis exegit infirmitas.\n\nInter haec cum Pelagius tantis sacrilegiorum uinculis inligetur, non mirum si per reprobum sensum multiplici tradatur errori, qui se per solum laborem putat posse saluari. merito contra huius arrogantiae praesumptionem sermo diuinus uim suae auctoritatis uel increpationis exseruit: nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater adtraxerit eum, et iterum: non uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis est dei. quod merito ad se dictum esse reputabit, qui salutem suam cum Pelagio propria in uoluntate ac uirtute constituit. quod utique illi obici non necesse est, qui non de solo labore praesumit, sed conatibus suis cotidianam dei misericordiam et iugem gratiam inplorandam esse cognoscit et auxilium domini peruigili exobsecratione deposcit.","english":"The wages of sin is death,” he says. Because he neglected to understand the prince of such great evil, he therefore failed to recognize that the condition of death imposed is the attendant of sin, concerning which we have spoken above: the wages of sin is death. He received a reward worthy of such a deed, such wages as he deserved who served the devil. Hence the chosen vessel most clearly shows and proclaims the rationale of redemption, saying: “For what? When we were still weak, did Christ die for the impious? For scarcely does anyone die for a just man.” This is to say: if justice had abounded on earth, medicine would not have been sent from heaven. But in order that the unique remedy might come, a general infirmity demanded it.\n\nIn the midst of these things, since Pelagius is bound by such great chains of sacrileges, it is no wonder if he is delivered over to manifold error through his depraved understanding, he who thinks he can be saved by effort alone. Rightly, against the presumption of this arrogance, the divine word has exerted the force of its authority or rebuke: “No one,” it says, “comes to me unless the Father has drawn him,” and again: “It is not of the one willing nor of the one running, but of the merciful God.” He who, with Pelagius, places his salvation in his own will and virtue will rightly consider this to have been said to himself. This, of course, need not be objected to one who does not presume upon effort alone, but recognizes that God’s daily mercy and continual grace must be implored for his endeavors, and who demands the Lord’s help with vigilant supplication.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"stipendium peccati mors","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'stipendium peccati mors' echoes Romans 6:23, where Paul writes that sin's wage is death. Faustus uses it to link original sin to mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quid enim, cum adhuc infirmi essemus, Christus pro impiis mortuus est?","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Galatians 3:4, where Paul argues that Christ died for the impious, not the just, underscoring universal sinfulness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater adtraxerit eum","severity":"info","text":"This saying is not a direct biblical verse but likely a conflation of John 6:44 ('No one comes to me unless drawn') and the concept of divine attraction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis est dei","severity":"info","text":"This phrase adapts a sentiment from Augustine (e.g., De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 15) rather than a specific Bible verse, emphasizing grace over human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"uas electionis","severity":"info","text":"'Chosen vessel' is a Pauline epithet (Acts 9:15) used by Faustus to refer to the Apostle Paul, whose authority he invokes to support his anti-Pelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Faustus attacks Pelagius by name, reflecting the ongoing controversy over original sin and grace. This passage shows Faustus aligning with Augustinian orthodoxy against Pelagianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'nemo uenit ad me nisi pater adtraxerit eum' is not a direct biblical quotation; it may be a loose paraphrase or a conflation of John 6:44 and other texts.","The source of 'non uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis est dei' is unclear; it may derive from Augustine or a lost patristic source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"II. CONTRA OBIECTIONEM PELAGII, QVA DICIT PAEUULOS BAPTISMO NON EGERE.\n\nAdtendit etiam hoc Pelagius: si per baptismi donum tollitur originale peccatum, de duobus baptizatis nati debent hoc carere peccato. quomodo, inquit, mittunt ad posteros, quod ipsi in se minime habuerunt? quibus facile respondetur duas esse natiuitates, de quarum una peccatum ex generantis uoluptate transmittitur, ex alia sanctificatio de regenerantis adoptione donatur. quomodo, inquit, mittunt ad posteros, quod ipsi in se minime habuerunt? quam inrationabilis et plena iniquitatis obiectio! non uis, ut transfundant in posteros quod naturae est, et uis, ut eis possint uelut de suo conferre quod gratiae est, de qua natura apostolus dicit: eratis, inquit, natura filii irae. merito quasi de proprio dare nequeunt, quod de sursum et extrinsecus acceperunt. inprudentissime per parentes filiis innocentiae puritatem Pelagius dari credit. ad parentum ministerium natiuitas secunda non pertinet. officium uult esse hominis quod dei munus est, ut uelut quodam hereditario ordine per hominum currat posteritatem quod extra humanam constat esse substantiam.","english":"II. AGAINST THE OBJECTION OF PELAGIUS, WHO SAYS THAT INFANTS HAVE NO NEED OF BAPTISM.\n\nPelagius also observes this: if original sin is removed by the gift of baptism, children born of two baptized parents ought to lack this sin. How, he says, do they transmit to their descendants what they themselves did not have at all in themselves? To these it is easily answered that there are two births, from one of which sin is transmitted through the desire of the begetter, from the other sanctification is bestowed through the adoption of the regenerator. How, he says, do they transmit to their descendants what they themselves did not have at all in themselves? How irrational and full of iniquity is this objection! You do not wish them to transfer to their descendants what belongs to nature, and you wish them to be able to confer upon them, as if from their own, what belongs to grace, concerning which nature the apostle says: you were, he says, by nature children of wrath. Rightly they cannot give as if from their own what they received from above and from without. Most imprudently does Pelagius believe that the purity of innocence is given by parents to children. The second birth does not pertain to the ministry of parents. He wishes the office of man to be what is the gift of God, so that, as if by some hereditary order, what is established to be outside human substance might run through human posterity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"II. CONTRA OBIECTIONEM PELAGII, QVA DICIT PAEUULOS BAPTISMO NON EGERE","severity":"info","text":"This heading introduces the second section of the treatise, framing it as a direct response to Pelagius's denial of the need for infant baptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"originale peccatum","severity":"info","text":"Original sin is a key concept in the debate; Faustus argues it is transmitted through natural birth, not removed by parental baptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"eratis, inquit, natura filii irae","severity":"info","text":"This alludes to Ephesians 2:3, where Paul describes humans as 'by nature children of wrath,' used by Faustus to support the necessity of grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Pelagius (c. 354–418) denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism, arguing that human nature is inherently good and sin is acquired by imitation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"duas esse natiuitates","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's distinction between natural birth (transmitting sin) and spiritual rebirth (bestowing sanctification) became a standard argument in later Latin theology against Pelagianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"inprudentissime per parentes filiis innocentiae puritatem Pelagius dari credit","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus's characterization of Pelagius's view may be polemically exaggerated; Pelagius likely held that infants are born innocent, not that parents actively transmit purity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'paeuulos' is a variant spelling of 'parvulos' (infants).","The phrase 'de sursum et extrinsecus' (from above and from without) is ambiguous as to whether it refers to God or to the sacrament of baptism itself."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"originale autem peccatum ex parentibus etiam baptizatis per carnis originem ad filios transire non dubium est dicentibus nobis cotidie cum propheta: ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum et in delictis peperit me mater mea, sicut et apostolus istud insanabile piaculum ex uno in omnes homines pertransisse confirmat.\n\nSed dicit Pelagius ideo non esse originale peccatum, quia ipsa concupiscentia generationis ex deo sit. unde autem ueniat nexus iste, qui posteros trahit, si requiras: sine dubio per incentiuum maledictae generationis ardorem et per inlecebrosum utriusque parentis amplexum. nam cum illum solum uideas ab originali inmunem esse contagione, qui non carne, sed spiritu, nec erubescenda passione, sed stupenda benedictione conceptus est, agnosce causam mali originalis de oblectamento natum conceptionis et de uitio uoluptatis. propterea etiam Adam et Euam in origine sua obnoxios conditio ista non tenuit, quia a duorum ministerio eorum quoque ortus alienus inlecebram in sui natiuitate et creatione nesciuit. sed forsitan requiras, quare in conceptu sit positum originale delictum. initium totius ruinae inoboedientia fuit. primum enim exaltatus homo postea humiliatus est et confusus.","english":"But that original sin passes from parents, even baptized ones, through the origin of the flesh to their children is not in doubt, as we daily say with the prophet: \"Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and my mother bore me in sins,\" just as the Apostle confirms that this incurable guilt has passed from one to all men.\n\nBut Pelagius says that original sin does not exist because the concupiscence of generation itself is from God. Yet if you ask whence comes this bond which drags down posterity, it is without doubt through the incentive of the accursed heat of generation and through the voluptuous embrace of both parents. For when you see that only he is immune from the contagion of original sin who was conceived not by flesh but by spirit, and not by a shameful passion but by a wondrous blessing, recognize that the cause of original evil arises from the delight of conception and from the vice of pleasure. For this reason also Adam and Eve in their origin were not held by this condition, because their own birth, from the ministry of the two, was alien to and knew no enticement in its nativity and creation. But perhaps you ask why original sin is placed in conception. The beginning of the whole ruin was disobedience. For man was first exalted, then humiliated and confounded.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum et in delictis peperit me mater mea","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Psalm 50:7 (Vulgate 50:7), altering the first-person singular to align with his argument about inherited sin. The psalmist’s confession becomes a proof-text for original sin passing through conception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"incentiuum maledictae generationis ardorem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'incentiuum' (incentive, goad) to describe concupiscence as a driving force in generation, echoing a negative view of sexual desire common in Latin patristic thought, notably in Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"originale peccatum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus defends the doctrine of original sin against Pelagius, who denied its transmission through baptism. The argument that baptized parents still transmit sin relies on the physical act of conception, not the parents’ spiritual state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed dicit Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"This passage follows a dialectical pattern: Faustus presents Pelagius’s objection (that concupiscence is from God, so not sinful) and then refutes it by linking original sin to the pleasure of conception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"qui non carne, sed spiritu, nec erubescenda passione, sed stupenda benedictione conceptus est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus alludes to Christ’s virgin birth as the sole exception to original sin, a standard argument in Latin theology. This anticipates later medieval debates on the Immaculate Conception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"inoboedientia","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus traces original sin to disobedience (inoboedientia), but the text does not specify whether this refers to Adam’s fall or a broader principle. The phrase 'initium totius ruinae' suggests a causal link, but the exact referent is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'inoboedientia' could refer to Adam’s disobedience in Eden or to a general human rebellion; the text does not clarify. The reference to Adam and Eve being free from original sin in their own origin is ambiguous: it may mean they were created without sin, or that their birth (as adults) lacked the concupiscence of human generation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"et quia, cum in honore esset, non intellexit, ideo conparatus est iumentis insipientibus et similis factus est illis.- quamdiu ergo circa auctoris obsequium humilitas reuerentiam tenuit, nuditatem conscientia inmaculata non sensit, cum uero illo animo, ut deus esset, gustum cibi letalis adpetiit et damnandam cupiditatem in ambitum maiestatis extendit, inmemor legis et mandatorum legis rebellis multatur inpugnatione membrorum et, dum aequalitatem domini sui praesumit, corporis sui perdidit potestatem. de superbia nata est incontinentia. nam quid in eo percussum esset ostendit, quando uerecunda contexit. praecessit elatio, secuta confusio est. diuinitatis ambitiosus libidinis coepit esse captiuus.\n\nSed forsitan dicas: dum haec disseris, nuptias damnare deprehenderis. non ita est. ordinatio nuptialis ex benedictione coepit, generatio corruptionem ex transgressione concepit. inter nuptiarum munus adhuc in paradiso a creatore concessum et earum usum, qui extra paradisum iam sumpsit exordium, peccatum in medio fuit. inter generationem et concupiscentiam quidquid praeceptio diuina constituit, hoc laudo, quidquid humana praeuaricatio adiecit, hoc reprobo. quomodo si aliquis atro inquinamento candorem niueae uestis aspergat, non displicet factura, sed macula. uestimenti non amisit usum, etsi perdidit dignitatem.","english":"and because, when he was in a position of honor, he did not understand, he was therefore compared to senseless beasts and made like them. So long, then, as humility maintained reverence in obedience to the author, the conscience, being immaculate, did not feel its nakedness; but when, with that intention of being a god, he sought the taste of the lethal food and extended his damnable lust into an ambition for majesty, forgetful of the law and rebellious against the law's commands, he is punished by the assault of his members, and while he presumes upon equality with his Lord, he lost power over his own body. From pride was born incontinence. For it shows what was struck in him when he covers his private parts. Elation preceded, and shame followed. Ambitious for divinity, he began to be a captive of lust.\n\nBut perhaps you will say: while you argue this, you are found to condemn marriage. It is not so. The ordinance of marriage began from a blessing; generation conceived corruption from transgression. Between the gift of marriage, still granted in paradise by the creator, and its use, which took its beginning outside paradise, sin stood in the middle. Between generation and concupiscence, whatever divine precept established, I praise; whatever human transgression added, I reject. Just as if someone were to bespatter the whiteness of a snow-white garment with a foul stain, it is not the workmanship that displeases, but the stain. The garment has not lost its use, even if it has lost its dignity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"nuditatem conscientia inmaculata non sensit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus interprets the prelapsarian state as one where the conscience, being immaculate, did not feel nakedness, linking physical shame to moral awareness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"conparatus est iumentis insipientibus","severity":"info","text":"Echoes Psalm 48:21 (LXX) or similar wisdom tradition comparing the foolish to beasts; Faustus applies it to Adam's fall.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"The preceding passage names Pelagius, situating Faustus's argument in the anti-Pelagian controversy over original sin and concupiscence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed forsitan dicas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses a rhetorical objection to transition from the fall narrative to a defense of marriage, a common dialectical technique in Latin treatises.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"concupiscentia","severity":"info","text":"Concupiscence here is the lustful desire born from pride, distinct from the marital blessing; Faustus separates divine institution from human corruption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"vestimenti non amisit usum, etsi perdidit dignitatem","severity":"info","text":"The garment metaphor parallels Augustine's distinction between the good of marriage and the evil of concupiscence, e.g., in De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine 420"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'nuditatem' could mean either physical nakedness or moral exposure; Faustus likely intends both."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"futura erat indubitanter casta et sincera generatio, si non intercessisset inimica transgressio. sed inmaculatos thoros caro maledictioni addicta maculauit et per superbiae spiritum simplicem corrupit affectum et sicut inmortalitatis priuilegium, ita donum perdidit puritatis. non in querellam uocatur nuptialis gratia, sed obscenae passionis iniuria. non aurum in culpam uenit, sed quidquid auro obryzo adulterinum fraus iniquitatis admiscuit, sicut ipsius Pelagii spiritum ad meliora studia a deo conditum corruptione pestifera nequitiae auctor infecit.\n\nIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA PER SOLAM GRATIAM OMNIS HOMO SINE ULLO LABORE SALUETUR.\n\nNunc ueniendum est ad illos, qui, dum gratiam aliis dari aliis negari asserunt, munus gratiae cum Pelagio perdiderunt. dicunt ergo ad cultum dei atque famulatum etiam post baptismi salutare donum deuotae seruitutis oboedientiam non requiri, sed solam per se gratiam effectum humanae salutis operari. totum, inquiunt, solius est gratiae. istud melius a nobis poterit dici, hoc magis nostris partibus conueniet adplicari, qui non in partem, sed in totum genus humanum gratiae beneficia fatemur extendi, sic tamen, ut ei uigilantiae humanae studium per omnia iudicemus adiungi. nam qui negat gratiae adsociandum famuli laboris conatum, subtrahit homini seruitutis officium.","english":"future generation would undoubtedly have been chaste and pure, had not hostile transgression intervened. But flesh addicted to a curse stained the immaculate marriage-bed, and through the spirit of pride corrupted simple affection, and just as it lost the privilege of immortality, so it lost the gift of purity. It is not nuptial grace that is called into complaint, but the injury of obscene passion. It is not gold that comes into blame, but whatever adulterine fraud of iniquity mixed with pure gold, just as the author of wickedness infected the spirit of Pelagius himself, divinely formed for better pursuits, with a pestilential corruption.\n\nIII. AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THAT EVERY MAN IS SAVED BY GRACE ALONE WITHOUT ANY EFFORT.\n\nNow we must come to those who, while asserting that grace is given to some and denied to others, have lost the gift of grace along with Pelagius. They say, therefore, that for the worship of God and service, even after the saving gift of baptism, the obedience of devoted servitude is not required, but that grace alone by itself works the effect of human salvation. Everything, they say, is of grace alone. This could be better said by us, this will more fittingly be applied to our own side, who confess that the benefits of grace are extended not to a part, but to the whole human race, yet in such a way that we judge the zeal of human vigilance to be joined to it in all things. For he who denies that the effort of a servant's labor is to be associated with grace, takes away from man the duty of service.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"III. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA PER SOLAM GRATIAM OMNIS HOMO SINE ULLO LABORE SALUETUR.","severity":"info","text":"This heading introduces a new argumentative section, marking a shift from the preceding narrative on original sin to a polemic against those who deny the need for human effort alongside grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'gratia' to denote divine grace, but here he distinguishes his own semi-Pelagian position from Pelagius' view by insisting grace is universal yet requires human cooperation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelagius","severity":"info","text":"Pelagius (c. 354–418) was a British ascetic whose teachings on free will and grace were condemned as heresy. Faustus, writing in the 5th century, opposes Pelagianism but also distances himself from extreme Augustinian views on predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"per superbiae spiritum simplicem corrupit affectum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus' description of pride corrupting simple affection echoes themes in Augustine's later works, but his insistence on human effort alongside grace was later criticized as semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange (529).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"inmaculatos thoros caro maledictioni addicta maculauit","severity":"info","text":"This likely alludes to Genesis 3 (the Fall) and the concept of original sin, though no direct quotation is present. The 'curse' on flesh recalls Pauline language (Romans 8:20-23).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"non aurum in culpam uenit, sed quidquid auro obryzo adulterinum fraus iniquitatis admiscuit","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of gold and adulteration is ambiguous: it may refer to the corruption of human nature by sin, or to Pelagius' original good nature being corrupted by heresy. The Latin 'obryzo' (pure gold) is rare.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'non aurum in culpam uenit' could be read as either 'gold is not at fault' (i.e., marriage itself is blameless) or 'it is not gold that comes into blame' (i.e., the pure element is not culpable). The translation opts for the latter, but the metaphor's referent (human nature vs. marriage) remains open.","The identity of 'illos' in the heading is unspecified; Faustus likely targets extreme Augustinians or Pelagians, but the text does not name them."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"nescio ubi aut quando ab opere feriari, quando otio debeat derelinqui, qui etiam in paradiso iubetur operari, in quo, sicut legimus, ita est constitutus, ut operaretur et custodiret illum.\n\nCONTRA EUM SENSUM, QVI DICENDO: UNUB AD MORTEM PRAEORDI- NATUS, ALTER AD UITAM PRAEDESTINATUS EST, REBUS IPSIS SPEM INTERCLUDIT ORANDI.\n\nCum dixerint: totum gratiae dei est, quis non ad tam reuerendum nomen omni cordis inclinetur affectu? sed cum responderimus: totum plane gratiae est, sed omnibus eam offert atque ingerit ad salutem omnium conditor ac redemptor, ad haec illi longe a pietatis tramite recedentes respondere praesument: non eam saluator omnibus dedit, quia nec pro omnibus mortuus est. ecce statim in secundis apparet gratiae inpugnator, qui in primis putabatur assertor. obiciunt nomen gratiae, ut abominandum sensum operiant blasphemiae. in alterutram itaque partem subsidia orationis excludunt. quid enim ultra speret, quem iam gratia suum fecit? in quo e contrario non desperet, quem praefinitio uiolenta damnauit? in hoc culpa, in illo gratia locum non habet. periclitabitur in utroque iustitia. remunerabitur sine fidei merito adsumptus, damnabitur sine proprio crimine derelictus. salus illuc ingerenda est non quaerenti, hinc auferenda laboranti.","english":"I do not know where or when he should rest from work, when he ought to be left to leisure, who is commanded to work even in paradise, where, as we read, he was so established that he would work and guard it.\n\nAgainst that opinion which, by saying that one is preordained to death, another predestined to life, cuts off the hope of praying by the very facts themselves.\n\nWhen they have said: \"Everything is of God's grace,\" who would not incline with all the heart's affection toward so reverend a name? But when we reply: \"It is entirely of grace, but the Creator and Redeemer offers and presses it upon all for the salvation of all,\" to this they, departing far from the path of piety, presume to answer: \"The Savior did not give it to all, because He did not die for all.\" Behold, immediately in the second part appears the impugner of grace, who in the first was thought to be its assertor. They cast up the name of grace in order to cover an abominable sense with blasphemy. Thus they exclude the supports of prayer from either side. For what more should he hope, whom grace has already made its own? And on the contrary, what should he not despair of, whom violent predefinition has condemned? In this one, fault has no place; in that one, grace has no place. Justice will be imperiled in both. The one assumed will be rewarded without the merit of faith; the one abandoned will be condemned without his own crime. Salvation is to be thrust upon the one not seeking it, and taken away from the one laboring for it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"operaretur et custodiret illum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'work and guard it' echoes the Genesis command to till and keep the garden, but Faustus uses it to argue that even in paradise labor was required, thus refuting the idea of predestined idleness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praefinitio uiolenta","severity":"info","text":"'Violent predefinition' is Faustus's pejorative term for the predestinarian view he opposes, contrasting it with the proper understanding of grace as universally offered.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non eam saluator omnibus dedit, quia nec pro omnibus mortuus est","severity":"info","text":"This echoes a contested interpretation of Romans 5:6 and 1 Corinthians 15:3, where some argued Christ's death was not for all, a view Faustus condemns as blasphemy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiae inpugnator","severity":"info","text":"Faustus accuses his opponents of being 'impugners of grace' despite claiming to defend it, reflecting the 5th-century controversy over Augustine's predestinarian teachings, which Faustus opposed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"in alterutram itaque partem subsidia orationis excludunt","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a rhetorical pivot: Faustus argues that the predestinarian view destroys the basis for prayer on both sides—whether one is saved or damned—by removing human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nescio ubi aut quando ab opere feriari","severity":"caution","text":"The opening sentence is grammatically ambiguous: 'feriari' could be deponent or passive, and the referent of 'qui' is unclear—possibly Adam or the hypothetical predestined person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The subject of 'operaretur et custodiret' is ambiguous: it could be Adam or a generic human; the Latin 'illum' (masculine) likely refers to 'paradisus' (masculine), but the English draft takes it as 'it' (the garden).","The phrase 'in secundis' (line 10) is ambiguous: it may mean 'in the second part' (of their argument) or 'in the second place' (i.e., immediately)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Sed dicis: ideo orare debet, quia ex qua parte sit nescit. quis non putet rationabiliter ac sapienter fuisse responsum? sed quid orare homini proderit in una harum duarum conditione omnimodis constituto? nam etsi ad quam partem fuerit deputatus ignorat, utramque tamen partem defixam esse et inmutabilem non ignorat. quid refert, si nondum nouerit locum suum, qui definitissime nouit, quia nullum iam recipiat uel dextera periculum uel sinistra profectum? quodsi adhuc tam confusa persuasio orationem necessariam putat, indubitanter agnoscat, quia contra definitionem suam et de salute ad perditionem et de perditione transire poterit ad salutem. si ergo orandi usum praetermittendum esse non aestimat, studium non excludat operandi. quid est hoc? pulsare debere me iudicas et aperiendum mihi esse desperas? alterutrum ergo faciat, aut fructum orationis neget aut legem statutae perditionis excludat. uidemus itaque, quia haec plena erroris assertio, dum causam intercludit orandi, de luce gratiae incipit et finis eius in tenebras sacrilegii decurrit ac deficit. sic diabolus calliditate ueteris artificii ac multiformis ingenii condit blandimenta peccandi. sic etiam malefici facere solent, qui mortiferos herbarum temperant sucos, in condito aut aliquo dulci poculo nescientibus propinaturis gustum mentita suauitate conponunt, uirus amaritudinis obscurant fraude dulcedinis.","english":"But you say: he ought to pray, because he does not know to which part he belongs. Who would not think this was reasonably and wisely answered? But what will prayer avail a man placed altogether in one of these two conditions? For even if he does not know to which part he has been assigned, he does not know that both parts are fixed and immutable. What does it matter if he does not yet know his place, when he knows most definitively that the right hand no longer admits of danger, nor the left hand of improvement? But if such a confused persuasion still considers prayer necessary, let him acknowledge without doubt that, contrary to his own definition, he can pass from salvation to perdition and from perdition to salvation. If, therefore, he does not think the practice of prayer should be omitted, let him not exclude the effort of working. What is this? You judge that I ought to knock, and you despair that the door will be opened to me? Therefore, do one or the other: either deny the fruit of prayer, or exclude the law of appointed perdition. Thus we see that this assertion, full of error, while it cuts off the cause of prayer, begins from the light of grace and its end runs down and fails into the darkness of sacrilege. Thus the devil, with the cunning of ancient artifice and manifold ingenuity, seasons the allurements of sin. Thus also sorcerers are accustomed to act, who temper deadly juices of herbs, preparing the taste with feigned sweetness in some sweetened draught to be given to the unsuspecting, obscuring the bitterness of the poison with the fraud of sweetness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed dicis: ideo orare debet, quia ex qua parte sit nescit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus presents a hypothetical objection from his opponents: prayer is necessary because one does not know one's predestined fate. This sets up the dialectical structure of the passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"dextera ... sinistra","severity":"info","text":"The terms 'right hand' (dextera) and 'left hand' (sinistra) metaphorically denote salvation and damnation, respectively. This binary imagery is common in Latin patristic discussions of predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quid est hoc? pulsare debere me iudicas et aperiendum mihi esse desperas?","severity":"info","text":"Faustus employs a rhetorical question to sharpen the logical dilemma: if prayer is futile under fixed predestination, then either prayer's efficacy or the law of appointed perdition must be denied.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sic etiam malefici facere solent, qui mortiferos herbarum temperant sucos","severity":"info","text":"The comparison of heretical teaching to sorcerers poisoning sweet drinks reflects a common patristic trope (cf. Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2.16). It underscores the deceptive allure of semi-Pelagian arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine 397"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sic diabolus calliditate ueteris artificii ac multiformis ingenii condit blandimenta peccandi","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's characterization of the devil's cunning echoes earlier anti-heretical rhetoric (e.g., Jerome, Epistula 133). This passage was later cited in the controversy over Faustus's own orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Jerome 415"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quodsi adhuc tam confusa persuasio orationem necessariam putat","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'confusa persuasio' may be a textual corruption; some manuscripts read 'confusa professio' or 'confusa praesumptio'. The sense remains that the opponent's view is incoherent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'confusa persuasio' is ambiguous: it could mean 'confused persuasion' or 'confused profession'. The reading adopted ('confused persuasion') aligns with the rhetorical context of logical inconsistency."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"prouocat primus odor poculi, sed praefocat inclusus sapor ueneni. mel est quod ascendit in labia, fel est quod descendit in uiscera.\n\nDicunt, quod in alterutro rerum statu illos sibi mors uindicet, istos uita defendat. quae cum dicant, qui unum in origine perditum, alterum in praedestinatione adfirmat electum, uide quo inproba persuasione declinet. quid enim aliud dicit, nisi quod adiutorio orationis neuter indigeat? nam iam praeordinatis ad uitam necessaria non erit, deputatis ad mortem prodesse non poterit. in isto superuacua, in illo infirma iudicabitur. beneficia supplicationis, qui in adquisitionis praedestinatione est, non requirit, qui uero in perditionis parte, non recipit. quodsi curam impendendam aestimat orationi, indubitanter intellegat ea, quae imminent, posse mutari secundum illud euangelicum: uigilate et orate, ne intretis in temptationem, item: uigilate itaque omni tempore orantes, ut digni habeamini fugere ista omnia, quae futura sunt, et stare ante filium hominis, et iterum: hoc genus daemonii non eicitur nisi per orationem et ieiunium. quodsi oratio necessaria non est, cur ipse, qui exorandus est, formam orationis instituit et orauit? in eo ergo, qui indoctis auribus solius gratiae assertione blanditur, propheticum illud inplebitur: malignus, inquit, nocet, cum se commiscuerit iusto.","english":"The first scent of the cup entices, but the hidden taste of poison chokes. Honey is what rises to the lips, gall is what descends into the vitals.\n\nThey say that in one or the other state of things, death claims those, life defends these. When those who affirm that one is lost from the beginning, the other elect by predestination, say these things, see to what shameless persuasion it declines. For what else does it say, but that neither needs the help of prayer? For it will not be necessary for those already preordained to life, nor can it benefit those assigned to death. In the one it will be judged superfluous, in the other ineffective. He who is in the predestination of acquisition does not require the benefits of supplication; he who is in the part of perdition does not receive them. But if he thinks that care should be given to prayer, let him understand without doubt that those things which impend can be changed, according to the evangelical saying: \"Watch and pray, that you do not enter into temptation,\" and again: \"Therefore watch at all times, praying that you may be deemed worthy to flee all these things which are to come, and to stand before the Son of Man,\" and again: \"This kind of demon is not cast out except by prayer and fasting.\" But if prayer is not necessary, why did he who is to be entreated institute the form of prayer and pray? Therefore, in him who flatters untaught ears with the assertion of grace alone, that prophetic saying will be fulfilled: \"The malicious one,\" it says, \"harms when he has mingled himself with the just.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"prouocat primus odor poculi, sed praefocat inclusus sapor ueneni","severity":"info","text":"The opening metaphor contrasts initial allure (honey on the lips) with hidden danger (gall in the vitals), illustrating the deceptive appeal of a doctrine that seems sweet but proves harmful.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praedestinatione","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'praedestinatione' to denote the divine foreordination of the elect, a key term in the predestinarian controversy he opposes, linking it to a fixed, immutable state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uigilate et orate, ne intretis in temptationem","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Matthew 24:42 and 26:41, where Christ exhorts watchfulness and prayer to avoid temptation, used by Faustus to argue that prayer can alter impending outcomes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc genus daemonii non eicitur nisi per orationem et ieiunium","severity":"info","text":"A reference to Matthew 17:21 (Vulgate) or a similar patristic saying, emphasizing prayer and fasting as necessary for exorcism, supporting Faustus’s case for the efficacy of prayer.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"malignus, inquit, nocet, cum se commiscuerit iusto","severity":"info","text":"Likely a paraphrase of Proverbs 11:15 or a similar sapiential verse, warning that a malicious person harms when associating with the just, applied to those who teach grace alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"qui unum in origine perditum, alterum in praedestinatione adfirmat electum","severity":"info","text":"This describes the dualistic predestinarian view Faustus refutes, possibly associated with Lucidus or extreme Augustinians, where some are lost from origin and others elect by predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact source of the final scriptural quotation ('malignus...') is uncertain; it may be a loose citation or a patristic adaptation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"auri species primo colore praefertur, sed plumbi uilitas intrinsecus latere deprehenditur. quomodo si sub praelato mentiti ciuis habitu subito hostis appareat aut si se inimici dolosa subtilitas transfiguret in angelum lucis, ita sub pietatis fronte gentilitatis malum et intra gratiae uocabulum absconditum erit fatale decretum. si ergo unus ad uitam, alter ad perditionem, ut asserunt, deputatus est, sicut quidam sanctorum dixit, non iudicandi nascimur, sed iudicati, neque ulla sibi iuxta haec poterit aequitas constare iudicii. nam si nihil deus famulo dedit, a famulo quid reposcet ?\n\nIIII. LEGIS OPERA DESTRUUNTUR ET GRATIAE COMMENDANTUR UEL . CONTRA HOC, QVOD INDOCTISS1ME TESTIMONIA PRO SOLIUS GRATIAE ADSERTIONE PROPONUNT.\n\nLegimus, inquiunt, ad Romanos: si enim Abraham ex operibus iustificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud deum, item: ei autem, qui operatur, merces non inputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. ei uero, qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum, qui iustificat impium, reputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. addunt etiam: si autem gratia non ex operibus, alioquin gratia iam non est gratia. quibus respondendum est duo esse genera operum, quorum unum post aduentum domini remouetur, aliud adprobatur. nam dicendo: ei uero, qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum, qui iustificat impium, reputatur fides eius ad iustitiam, aperte fidem legis operibus anteponit.","english":"The appearance of gold is presented at first by its color, but the worthlessness of lead is detected lurking within. Just as if, under the guise of a pretended citizen, an enemy suddenly appears, or if the deceitful cunning of an adversary transforms itself into an angel of light, so under the front of piety the evil of paganism and, hidden within the name of grace, a fatal decree will lie concealed. If, therefore, one is destined for life, another for perdition, as they assert, as one of the saints said, we are not born to be judged, but judged, and according to these claims no equity of judgment can stand. For if God gave nothing to the servant, what will he demand from the servant?\n\nIV. THE WORKS OF THE LAW ARE DESTROYED AND THOSE OF GRACE ARE COMMENDED, OR AGAINST THIS, THAT THE MOST UNLEARNED TESTIMONIES ARE PUT FORWARD FOR THE ASSERTION OF GRACE ALONE.\n\nWe read, they say, in Romans: \"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has glory, but not before God\"; likewise: \"But to him who works, a reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.\" They also add: \"But if grace is not from works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.\" To these things it must be answered that there are two kinds of works, one of which is removed after the coming of the Lord, the other is approved. For by saying: \"But to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is reckoned for righteousness,\" it openly prefers faith to the works of the law.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"IIII. LEGIS OPERA DESTRUUNTUR ET GRATIAE COMMENDANTUR UEL . CONTRA HOC, QVOD INDOCTISS1ME TESTIMONIA PRO SOLIUS GRATIAE ADSERTIONE PROPONUNT.","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading introduces a new argumentative section: Faustus will refute opponents who misuse Scripture to support sola gratia. The heading's phrasing echoes the treatise's polemical structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ad Romanos: si enim Abraham ex operibus iustificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud deum","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 4:2, where Paul discusses Abraham's justification not by works but by faith. Faustus's opponents cite it to argue against works-righteousness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ei autem, qui operatur, merces non inputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. ei uero, qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum, qui iustificat impium, re","severity":"info","text":"This conflates and adapts Romans 4:4-5 and possibly 3:28. The opponents use it to contrast works (debitum) with faith (gratia). Faustus will reinterpret the 'works' as legal, not moral.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"In this passage, gratia is the contested term: Faustus's opponents equate it with predestinarian grace; Faustus will argue for a grace that cooperates with human effort, not a fatal decretum.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"quidam sanctorum dixit, non iudicandi nascimur, sed iudicati","severity":"info","text":"Faustus attributes this saying to 'one of the saints,' likely a reference to a predestinarian authority (possibly Prosper of Aquitaine or a Pelagian opponent). The phrase encapsulates the fatalist view he opposes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sub pietatis fronte gentilitatis malum et intra gratiae uocabulum absconditum erit fatale decretum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus accuses his opponents of hiding pagan fatalism under Christian terms. This charge echoes earlier anti-Gnostic and anti-Manichaean polemic, and would be repeated in later anti-predestinarian debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quidam sanctorum' is not identified; it may refer to a known predestinarian writer or be a rhetorical foil.","The scripture citations are paraphrased and conflated; the exact verses are uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"neque enim apostolorum testimonia conpugnantia et contraria sibi esse dicemus, cum alius apostolus dicat: fides sine operibus mortua est, et iterum: ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus et ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam. tu credis, quoniam unus deus est, bene facis. et daemones credunt et contremiscunt, item: sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est, ita et fides sine operibus mortua est. sed nec ipse doctor gentium Paulus diuersus sibi et contrarius apparebit ita dicens: in omnibus exhibeamus nosmet ipsos sicut dei ministros in multa patientia, in tribulationibus, in necessitatibus, in angustiis, in plagis, in carceribus, in seditionibus, in laboribus, et iterum: unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem. quae imperitis indoctis et his, qui ueritati obstinato spiritu reluctantur, discordantia uidebuntur. uerum iuxta catholicam regulam opera legis euacuantur, quae secundum litteram sunt, et ea, quae post gratiam comitante gratia gerenda sunt, asseruntur.","english":"For we shall not say that the testimonies of the apostles are conflicting and contrary to each other, when one apostle says: faith without works is dead, and again: show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith from works. You believe, because there is one God; you do well. Even demons believe and tremble. Likewise: just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. But neither will the teacher of the Gentiles, Paul himself, appear diverse and contrary to himself when he speaks thus: in all things let us show ourselves as ministers of God in much patience, in tribulations, in necessities, in distresses, in plagues, in prisons, in seditions, in labors, and again: each one will receive his own reward according to his labor. These things will seem discordant to the unskilled, the untaught, and to those who with obstinate spirit resist the truth. But according to the catholic rule, the works of the law which are according to the letter are voided, and those things which are to be done after grace, with grace accompanying, are affirmed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"fides sine operibus mortua est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus attributes this maxim to an unnamed apostle, likely James 2:26 in the Vetus Latina, though the exact wording differs from the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus et ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of James 2:18, adapted to Faustus’s argument for the necessity of works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est, ita et fides sine operibus mortua est","severity":"info","text":"A simile echoing James 2:26, but also paralleled in patristic sources; Faustus uses it to reinforce the inseparability of faith and works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in omnibus exhibeamus nosmet ipsos sicut dei ministros in multa patientia, in tribulationibus, in necessitatibus, in angustiis, in plagis, in carceribus, in sed","severity":"info","text":"A loose composite of Pauline exhortations (cf. 2 Cor 6:4–10, Rom 12:1, Eph 6:20–22), not a single verse; Faustus adapts it to his catalogue of virtuous suffering.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of 1 Cor 3:8 or Matt 16:27, emphasizing reward proportional to effort, central to Faustus’s anti-Pelagian but semi-Pelagian stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"catholicam regulam","severity":"info","text":"Faustus invokes the 'catholic rule' to distinguish between works of the law (voided) and works done after grace with grace accompanying, a key semi-Pelagian distinction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'compugnantia' is a rare term meaning 'fighting together' or 'conflicting'; the translation 'conflicting' is adopted. The phrase 'opera legis ... quae secundum litteram sunt' may refer to Jewish ceremonial law or to a literal interpretation of Scripture; the context suggests the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Uideamus si hoc ita esse rebus ipsis adprobare ualeamus. opera legis destrui legimus, cum Iudaeorum conprimit elationem dicens: ubi est, inquit, gloriatio tua? exclusa est. per quam legem? factorum? non, sed per legem fidei. arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis. similiter et ad Galatas dicit: scientes, inquit, quod non iustificatur homo ex operibus legis nisi per fidem Christi Iesu, et nos in Christo Iesu credimus, ut iustificemur ex fide Christi et non ex operibus legis. propter quod ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illo. ac sic euacuari opera error impius dixit, sed quae illa essent dolosa calliditate subpressit. nunc ergo patieris intellegendi difficultatem, si personarum uel operum intellexeris distinctionem. ad Iudaeos enim dicitur: non iustificabitur ex operibus legis omnis caro. ad Christianos uero iam in Christo renatos ita instructionis sermo dirigitur: operamini bonum ad omnes, maxime autem ad domesticos fidei, et iterum: itaque, fratres mei dilecti, stabiles estote et inmobiles, abundantes in opere domini semper, scientes quod labor uester non est inanis in domino. ad Christianos, inquam, dicitur: sic luceat lux uestra coram omnibus hominibus, ut uideant bona opera uestra et glorificent patrem uestrum, qui est in caelis, id est, ut non tam otio resoluamur, quam de operibus bonis non in nobis, sed in domino gloriemur.","english":"Let us see if we are able to prove that this is so by the things themselves. We read that the works of the law are destroyed, when he [the apostle] crushes the pride of the Jews, saying: \"Where,\" he says, \"is your boasting? It is shut out. By which law? Of deeds? No, but by the law of faith. For we consider that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law.\" Similarly, he says to the Galatians: \"Knowing,\" he says, \"that a man is not justified by the works of the law except through faith in Christ Jesus, and we believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. On account of which, not every flesh will be justified by the works of the law before him.\" And thus the impious error said that works are abolished, but it suppressed with deceitful cunning what those works were. Now, therefore, you will suffer difficulty in understanding, if you have not understood the distinction of persons or of works. For it is said to the Jews: \"Not every flesh will be justified by the works of the law.\" But to Christians already reborn in Christ, the discourse of instruction is directed thus: \"Do good to all, but especially to the household of faith,\" and again: \"Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.\" To Christians, I say, it is said: \"Let your light shine before all men, so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father, who is in heaven,\" that is, that we should not so much be dissolved in idleness as glory in good works not in ourselves, but in the Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ad Galatas dicit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus conflates two Pauline passages: Romans 3:27-28 (works of the law) and Galatians 2:16 (justification by faith). The citation is a loose paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"operamini bonum ad omnes","severity":"info","text":"This exhortation is not a direct biblical quotation but echoes Galatians 6:10 and 1 Peter 2:17. Faustus adapts it to contrast Jewish and Christian audiences.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sic luceat lux uestra","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to Matthew 5:16 and Luke 11:33, where good works are to be seen by others. Faustus applies it to Christians reborn in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"error impius","severity":"info","text":"The 'impious error' likely refers to the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian position that works are unnecessary. Faustus counters by distinguishing audiences: Jews vs. Christians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"personarum uel operum distinctionem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus introduces a hermeneutical key: the same scriptural statements apply differently to Jews (under the law) and Christians (under grace). This frames his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"euacuari opera","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'works are abolished' is a contested term. Faustus denies that all works are voided, only those of the Mosaic law for Jews, not Christian good works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical references are paraphrased and not verbatim; the identity of the 'impious error' is not named explicitly."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"ad Christianos dicitur: in ueritate conperi, quoniam non est personarum acceptor deus, sed in omni gente, qui timet illum et operatur iustitiam, acceptus est illi.\n\nV. DB EO QVOD AIT: GRATIA DEI SUM ID QVOD SUM.\n\nAudi apostolum laborem eum gratia humili confessione miscentem: gratia autem dei sum id, quod sum, et gratia illius in me uacua non fuit, sed abundantius illis omnibus laboraui: non ego autem, sed gratia dei mecum. uide quomodo ad gratiae donum semper subiungit laboris obsequium: non ego autem. quia mentionem solius laboris intulerat, cito quasi ad amplexum matris gratiae recucurrit dicens: sed gratia dei mecum. gratia, inquit, dei sum. primas partes soli gratiae pie subiectus adscripsit, media quaeque labori magister oboedientiae deputauit, utrumque in consummatione moderatus gratiam laboremque coniunxit. non dixit: ego sine gratia uel gratia sine me, sed gratia dei mecum. quae prius singillatim distincta protulerat, quam bene in sermonis fine conexuit. ac sic apud regeneratos, quando gratia sine labore uel labor sine gratia in scripturis ponitur, supprimitur, non separatur. cum unum sine altero dicitur, tacetur alterum, non negatur secundum illam regulam, quam antistes Augustinus insinuat: non omnia quae tacentur negantur.","english":"It is said to Christians: I have found in truth that God is not a discriminator of persons, but in every nation, whoever fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.\n\nV. CONCERNING THE STATEMENT: \"I AM WHAT I AM BY THE GRACE OF GOD.\"\n\nHear the apostle mingling his labor with the humble confession of grace: \"But I am what I am by the grace of God, and his grace in me was not empty, but I labored more abundantly than all of them: not I, however, but the grace of God with me.\" See how to the gift of grace he always joins the service of labor: \"not I, however.\" Because he had introduced a mention of labor alone, he quickly ran back, as if to the embrace of mother grace, saying: \"but the grace of God with me.\" \"By grace,\" he says, \"I am.\" Piously subject, he assigned the first parts to grace alone; the middle parts, the teacher of obedience, he assigned to labor; in the conclusion he moderated both, joining grace and labor. He did not say: \"I without grace\" or \"grace without me,\" but \"the grace of God with me.\" Those things which he had previously set forth separately, one by one, how well he connected them at the end of the sentence. And thus among the regenerate, when grace without labor or labor without grace is placed in the scriptures, one is suppressed, not separated. When one is said without the other, the other is passed over in silence, not denied, according to that rule which Bishop Augustine suggests: not all things that are passed over in silence are denied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia dei sum id quod sum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts a Pauline phrase; cf. 1 Cor 15:10 (Vulgate: 'gratia sum id quod sum') but the fuller expression echoes Augustine's usage in his anti-Pelagian works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"antistes Augustinus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus invokes Augustine's authority ('antistes Augustinus') for the rule that silence does not imply denial, a key hermeneutic in the semi-Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'gratia' to denote divine favor, but his pairing with 'labor' reflects a semi-Pelagian insistence on human effort alongside grace, distinguishing his view from Augustine's predestinarian emphasis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"non ego autem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus highlights the apostle's rhetorical correction ('non ego autem') as a structural pivot, showing how the text moves from labor to grace and then to their conjunction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"regula","severity":"info","text":"The rule 'non omnia quae tacentur negantur' is a standard exegetical principle in patristic literature, used here to defend the compatibility of grace and labor in scriptural passages that mention only one.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'gratia dei sum id quod sum' is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase; its exact source is uncertain.","The phrase 'in ueritate conperi' in the opening sentence is ambiguous: it may be a citation or Faustus's own assertion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Sed et alio loco dicit apostolus: castigo corpus meum et in seruitutem redigo, ne forte, cum aliis praedicauerim, ipse reprobus efficiar. ecce beatus apostolus iam Christo adquisitus, iam uas electionis effectus nequaquam sub nomine praedestinationis et gratiae otio manus relaxat, sed cum dei beneficiis conatus suos iungit et dicit: castigo corpus meum et in seruitutem redigo. ecce iam partis dexterae miles est, et uide, quomodo periclitari metuit iam probatus, quomodo reprobari pertimescit electus. iam uictoriam in manibus habet et necdum arma deponit, iam perductus est ad triumphum et adhuc militiae pertimescit euentum. quae cum ita sint, perspice te non contra infirmam quamcumque personam, sed contra summi apostoli doctrinam armis impii erroris insurgere et Christo, qui intra eum loquitur, contradicere. dumque laboris seruitium et orandi causas adimis, ianuam salutis humano generi intercludere te agnosce et, dum Pelagii impietatem nescis refugere, ad Manichaeorum dogma pestiferum, qui liberum arbitrium totum denegant, te intellege declinare.","english":"But in another place the Apostle says: \"I chastise my body and bring it into servitude, lest, after having preached to others, I myself be found reprobate.\" Behold, the blessed Apostle, already acquired for Christ, already made a vessel of election, by no means relaxes his hands under the name of predestination and grace, but joins his own efforts to the benefits of God and says: \"I chastise my body and bring it into servitude.\" Behold, he is already a soldier of the right-hand side, and see how he, already proven, fears to be in peril, how he, the elect, dreads being reprobate. He already holds victory in his hands and has not yet laid down his arms; he has already been led to triumph and still fears the outcome of his service. Since these things are so, recognize that you are rising up not against some weak person, but against the teaching of the supreme Apostle with the weapons of impious error, and contradicting Christ, who speaks within him. And while you remove the servitude of labor and the reasons for prayer, acknowledge that you are closing the door of salvation to the human race, and while you do not know how to flee the impiety of Pelagius, understand that you are declining toward the pestilential dogma of the Manichaeans, who deny free will entirely.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"castigo corpus meum et in seruitutem redigo","severity":"info","text":"Faustus attributes to Paul a saying not found verbatim in the canonical epistles; it may be a loose paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 9:27 or a conflation with ascetic commonplaces.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"reprobus","severity":"info","text":"Reprobus echoes the Pauline language of reprobation (cf. Romans 9–11) but here denotes moral failure rather than divine predestination, a key point in Faustus’s anti-predestinarian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"partis dexterae miles","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'soldier of the right-hand side' likely alludes to the late Roman military metaphor of the elite right wing, used by Christian authors to denote the orthodox or elect.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Manichaeorum dogma pestiferum","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus equates denial of free will with Manichaeism, a standard anti-predestinarian trope in the 5th-century Gallic controversy; the charge is rhetorical rather than doctrinal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ecce ... ecce ... ecce","severity":"info","text":"The triple ecce (behold) structures a climactic rhetorical sequence, emphasizing Paul’s continued ascetic effort despite his elect status, a key argument against quietism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Pauline quotation is uncertain; it may be a free composition by Faustus.","The identity of the opponent addressed in the second person is not specified, but likely refers to predestinarian opponents."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"VI. QVOMODO INTELLEGENDUM SIT: GRATIA, INQVIT, SALUI FACTI ESTIS PER FIDEM, ET HOC NON EX UOBIS. DEI ENIM DONUM EST, NON EX OPERIBUS, NE QVIS GLORIETUR. UBI ET FIDES INTER OPERA NUMERATUR ET CIBUS LEGIS PERIRE, CIBUS GRATIAE MANERE DESCRIBITUR.\n\nSicut inter opera legis et fidei desidiae amicus et discretionis ignarus ab intellegentiae tramite deuiasti, ita inter duo gratiae tempora persuasionem tuam pessimum ducem secutus lucentem catholicae fidei regulam perdidisti. tempus gratiae, quo redempti sumus, merita hominum non expectauit, opera penitus non quaesiuit, sola deus fidei nostrae deuotione contentus fuit secundum illud apostoli: credidit Abraham deo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam, sicut et alio loco dicit: iustus autem ex fide mea uiuit. quod si subtraxerit se, non placebit animae meae. iustum eum et ex fide uiuere asseruit, quia ei fidem et iustitiam quaerenti contulisse se meminit. sed dicendo: quod si subtraxerit se, cum ad deuia uoluntarius declinauit, non periit quasi derelictus, qui se ingerenti misericordiae subtraxit ingratus. item ad Hebraeos: credere autem oportet accedentem ad deum, quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator fit. quam bene et domini officium coniunxit et famuli dicendo: et inquirentibus se remunerator fit. sicut enim ad deum largitio remunerandi, ita ad hominem deuotio respicit inquirendi.","english":"VI. HOW IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD: \"Grace,\" he says, \"you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves. For it is a gift of God, not from works, lest anyone boast.\" Here both faith is counted among works, and the food of the law is described as perishing, the food of grace as remaining.\n\nJust as between the works of law and faith, as a friend of idleness and ignorant of discernment, you deviated from the path of understanding, so between the two times of grace, following your persuasion as the worst guide, you lost the shining rule of catholic faith. The time of grace, by which we were redeemed, did not await human merits, did not seek works at all; God was content with the devotion of our faith alone, according to that saying of the Apostle: \"Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,\" just as in another place he says: \"But the just man lives from my faith. If he withdraws himself, he will not please my soul.\" He asserted that he is just and lives from faith, because he remembers that he conferred faith and righteousness upon him who sought them. But by saying: \"If he withdraws himself,\" when he voluntarily turned aside to devious ways, he did not perish as if abandoned, who ungratefully withdrew himself from the mercy that offered itself. Likewise, to the Hebrews: \"But one who approaches God must believe that he exists, and he becomes a rewarder to those who seek him.\" How well he joined the office of the Lord and of the servant by saying: \"and he becomes a rewarder to those who seek him.\" For just as the bestowal of rewarding pertains to God, so the devotion of seeking pertains to man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VI. QVOMODO INTELLEGENDUM SIT","severity":"info","text":"This section heading introduces a new argumentative unit, responding to an opponent's misinterpretation of grace and faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"credidit Abraham deo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam","severity":"info","text":"Likely a paraphrase of Galatians 3:6 or a similar Pauline passage, though not a direct quotation; Faustus uses it to argue that faith alone sufficed for righteousness in the time of grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iustus autem ex fide mea uiuit","severity":"info","text":"An apparent paraphrase of a Pauline statement (cf. Romans 3:28 or Galatians 3:11), but the wording is loose; Faustus adapts it to his argument that righteousness derives from faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"credere autem oportet accedentem ad deum, quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator fit","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Hebrews 11:6, emphasizing the necessity of faith and the reciprocal roles of God as rewarder and the human as seeker.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tempus gratiae","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes two 'times of grace': the initial redemptive moment (requiring no works) and a subsequent period where human effort cooperates; this is central to his anti-predestinarian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cibus legis perire, cibus gratiae manere","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of 'food of the law' versus 'food of grace' reflects Faustus's contrast between Old Law and New Covenant, a common patristic trope (cf. Augustine, but here used to oppose predestinarian readings).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical sources for the paraphrased verses are uncertain; Faustus may be citing from memory or adapting common proof-texts."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Sed dicis fidem ipsam non omnibus posse conpetere. non mirum si homini, ad quem denegas opera pertinere, etiam fidem studeas derogare, quam manifestum est inter opera putari, sicut habemus in euangelio: operamini non cibum, qui perit, sed qui permanet in uitam aeternam, ubi cibus, id est intellectus litterae perire, cibus uero gratiae, id est fides permanere describitur. et ita continuatus sermo consequitur: dixerunt ad eum Iudaei: quid faciemus, ut operemur opera dei? respondit Iesus et dixit eis: hoc est opus dei, ut credatis in eum, quem misit ille. aduertis, quia nihil in famulatu dei sine opere geritur, quando et is, qui credere uidetur, operatur? item in apostolo: neque circumcisio aliquid ualet neque praeputium, sed fides, quae per caritatem operatur. similiter et ad Thessalonicenses [secunda]: dignetur uos uocatione sua deus et impleat omnem uoluntatem bonitatis et opus fidei in uobis, et de Abraham in epistola apostoli Iacobi: uides, quia fides cooperabatur operibus illius et ex operibus fides consummata est. geminum hic officium recognosce et operationis et fidei. gratia, inquit, salui facti estis per fidem.","english":"But you say that faith itself cannot belong to all. It is no wonder if, for a man to whom you deny that works pertain, you also strive to detract from faith, which is manifestly counted among works, as we have in the Gospel: \"Work not for food, which perishes, but for that which endures to eternal life,\" where the food, that is, the understanding of the letter, is described as perishing, but the food of grace, that is, faith, is described as enduring. And the discourse continues accordingly: \"The Jews said to him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he sent.\" Do you not notice that nothing in the service of God is carried out without work, when even he who seems to believe is working? Likewise in the Apostle: \"Neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith, which works through charity.\" Similarly, to the Thessalonians [Second]: \"May God deem you worthy of his calling and fill every will of goodness and the work of faith in you,\" and concerning Abraham in the epistle of the Apostle James: \"You see that faith was cooperating with his works and from works faith was perfected.\" Recognize here the twin office of both operation and faith. \"Grace,\" he says, \"you have been saved through faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"operamini non cibum, qui perit, sed qui permanet in uitam aeternam","severity":"info","text":"This is a conflation of John 6:27 and 6:35, adapted to contrast perishable 'food' (letter) with enduring 'food' (faith).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc est opus dei, ut credatis in eum, quem misit ille","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of John 6:29, where the Jews ask about works and Jesus replies that belief in the one he sent is the work of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"neque circumcisio aliquid ualet neque praeputium, sed fides, quae per caritatem operatur","severity":"info","text":"A loose citation of Galatians 5:6 (or 6:15), emphasizing faith working through charity, a key Pauline theme.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dignetur uos uocatione sua deus et impleat omnem uoluntatem bonitatis et opus fidei in uobis","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of 2 Thessalonians 1:11, where Paul prays for the Thessalonians to be filled with goodness and the work of faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uides, quia fides cooperabatur operibus illius et ex operibus fides consummata est","severity":"info","text":"A reference to James 2:22-23, where Abraham's faith is shown to cooperate with his works and be perfected by them.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"geminum hic officium recognosce et operationis et fidei","severity":"info","text":"Faustus concludes the scriptural catena by asserting a dual office of operation and faith, reinforcing his anti-Pelagian argument that faith is a work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'operamini non cibum' is ambiguous: it could be an imperative ('work not for food') or a misreading of John 6:27 ('do not work for food that perishes'). The translation takes it as imperative.","The citation 'ad Thessalonicenses [secunda]' is ambiguous: it may refer to 2 Thessalonians 1:11, but the wording is a paraphrase, not a direct quote."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"prima itaque uocatio conpendia fidei requirit a nobis, sequentis uero temporis gratia redemptis ablutis innouatis sedulitatem operis et curam laboriosae seruitutis indicit, ut quod sine labore accepimus opitulante adiutorio cum labore seruemus apostolo commonente: uidete, inquit, ne in uacuum gratiam dei recipiatis. agnosce distinctos esse gradus uocationis et consummationis. fidem expectat a paruulis, opera etiam cum fide a confirmatis requirit ita tamen, ut credulitatis affectum proficientibus augeat et laborantibus adiutor cotidianus adsistat.\n\nVII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT LIBERUM ARBITRIUM EX TOTO FUISSE SUBLATUM.\n\nHuius inprobae persuasionis assertor hominem intellectu locupletatum, ratione praeditum, diuinae imaginis honore decoratum brutis animantibus et iumentis insipientibus aestimat conparandum, ut ad uiam rectam nullo suo ductu, sed uiolento tantum auctoris imperio pertrahatur.","english":"The first calling, therefore, requires from us the compendia of faith; the grace of the subsequent time, however, imposes upon the redeemed, washed, and renewed the diligence of work and the care of laborious service, so that what we have received without labor, with the help of assisting aid, we may preserve with labor, the apostle admonishing: “See,” he says, “that you do not receive the grace of God in vain.” Acknowledge that the stages of calling and of consummation are distinct. Faith it expects from the little ones; works, together with faith, it requires from the confirmed, yet in such a way that it increases the disposition of belief in those who are progressing and that a daily helper stands by those who are laboring.\n\nVII. AGAINST THIS, THAT THEY SAY FREE WILL WAS ENTIRELY TAKEN AWAY.\n\nThe assertor of this depraved persuasion considers man, enriched with intellect, endowed with reason, adorned with the honor of the divine image, to be comparable to brute animals and senseless beasts, so that he is drawn to the right path by no guidance of his own, but only by the violent command of the author.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"prima uocatio","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'prima uocatio' (first calling) is a technical term in Faustus's soteriology, distinguishing an initial, grace-given faith from the subsequent grace that demands cooperative works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uidete ne in uacuum gratiam dei recipiatis","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 6:1, where Paul warns against receiving grace in vain. Faustus uses it to support his argument that grace requires active preservation through labor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"brutis animantibus et iumentis insipientibus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus here caricatures the position of his opponents (likely predestinarians) as reducing humans to brute beasts, a common polemical trope in the 5th-century grace debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT LIBERUM ARBITRIUM EX TOTO FUISSE SUBLATUM","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks a new chapter in the treatise, where Faustus directly refutes the claim that free will has been entirely abolished, a key point in his anti-predestinarian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Huius inprobe persuasionis assertor","severity":"info","text":"The 'assertor' likely refers to a specific opponent, possibly a follower of Augustine's later predestinarian views, though Faustus does not name him here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'assertor' in the second paragraph is not specified; it may be a generic opponent or a known figure like Lucidus.","The phrase 'compendia fidei' is ambiguous: it could mean 'summaries of faith' or 'shortcuts of faith'; the translation 'compendia' is retained from the Latin."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"quo genere eum etiam insensibilibus adsimilare contendit elementis, ut sicut de ratione terrarum, quae nihil ubertatis arbitrio suo proferunt, quae propriae fecunditatis ignarae sunt, quibus sensus alicuius nec libertas subpetit nec uoluntas, frugum tamen prouentus ex his cultore operante capiuntur, ita ex homine ab omni exercitio uirtutis otioso iustitiae fructus ac bonarum rerum adpetitus atque profectus solo deo insistente sumantur et, quasi in nullo uel sentiat uel consentiat, ita, quaecumque adpetierit gesseritue, in nullo ad conatum eius ac studium pertinere iudicentur, et sicut mare magnum, quod huc atque illuc uentis agitantibus uolutatur, ita ad quodcumque bonum facinus sine ullo affectu suo solo diuinae potestatis inpulsu mens humana uersetur. quae cum ita sint, si hominem a sinistra mali non reuocat intellectus, si ad dexteram boni non excitat ambitus, iam non hominis tenebitur conditione, sed pecudis.","english":"in such a way he also attempts to liken him to insensible elements, so that, just as from the nature of lands, which produce nothing of fertility by their own choice, which are ignorant of their own fecundity, to which neither sense of any kind nor liberty nor will is available, yet the yield of crops is taken from them by the working cultivator, so from a man idle from all exercise of virtue, the fruits of justice and the appetite and progress of good things are taken solely by God’s insistence, and, as if he neither feels nor consents in any way, so whatever he has sought or done is judged to pertain in no way to his effort and zeal, and just as the great sea, which is rolled this way and that by the driving winds, so the human mind is turned to any good deed without any affection of its own, solely by the impulse of divine power. Since these things are so, if understanding does not recall a man from the left of evil, if ambition does not rouse him to the right of good, he will no longer be held by the condition of a man, but of a beast.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"insensibilibus adsimilare contendit elementis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus here attacks a view he attributes to his opponents (likely the semi-Pelagians or those influenced by Augustine's later predestinarianism) that human moral effort is irrelevant, comparing man to insensible elements like earth or the sea. This reflects the controversy over grace and free will in 5th-century Gaul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut mare magnum ... uentis agitantibus uolutatur","severity":"info","text":"The image of the sea driven by winds as a metaphor for the human mind moved solely by divine power echoes a common Stoic and patristic trope (e.g., Seneca, De Providentia; Augustine, De Civitate Dei). Faustus uses it to caricature the deterministic view he rejects.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quae cum ita sint","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a logical conclusion to the preceding analogy. Faustus sums up the reductio ad absurdum: if man lacks both intellectual and volitional response to good and evil, he is reduced to the condition of a beast, not a human.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ambitus","severity":"info","text":"Ambitus here means 'striving' or 'aspiration' toward the good, not the negative sense of ambition. Faustus uses it to denote the natural human desire for virtue, which he insists is necessary alongside grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"a sinistra mali ... ad dexteram boni","severity":"caution","text":"The spatial metaphor 'left of evil' and 'right of good' is unusual. It may reflect a binary moral geography (evil as left, good as right) common in Latin moralizing, but the precise source or idiom is unclear; it is not a biblical phrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the opponent being attacked is not named; likely a radical Augustinian or a straw man of Faustus's own construction.","The phrase 'a sinistra mali ... ad dexteram boni' is ambiguous in its exact referent; it may be a rhetorical flourish rather than a fixed moral scheme."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Ecce haereticus sub praetextu gratiae qualem uult hominem esse post gratiam. itaque si liberum arbitrium ex toto periit, quod utique in amore innocentiae uel operatione iustitiae uel in corporis sanctificatione consistit, si hoc ex toto in primi hominis praeuaricatione sublatum est, quomodo legimus: iustitiam discite, qui habitatis terram, et iterum: iustus autem ex fide mea uiuit, et: iusti hereditate possidebunt terram, et: oculi domini super iustos et aures eius ad preces eorum? numquid penitus interiit innocentia, quia in primo eius gradu possessor eius stare neglexit? non opinor, quia scriptum est: innocentes et recti adhaeserunt mihi, et iterum: quis stabit in loco sancto eius? innocens manibus et mundo corde, et iterum: dominus non priuabit bonis ambulantes in innocentia. numquid sanctificatio corporis ex toto amissa esse credenda est, quia membris in seruo rebelli suam non seruantibus seruitutem discussa est primae dignitas puritatis? non utique, quia legimus: ut exhibeatis corpora uestra hostiam uiuam sanctam placentem deo, et iterum: sancti estote, quia ego sanctus sum. ita hoc genere bonorum illorum, quae male securus paradisi incola a benigno auctore susceperat, non periit actio, etsi est amissa perfectio. non, inquam, harum uirtutum periit castitas, etsi est temerata uirginalis integritas.","english":"Behold, the heretic, under the pretext of grace, what kind of man he wishes man to be after grace. Therefore, if free will has perished entirely—which assuredly consists in the love of innocence, or the operation of justice, or in the sanctification of the body—if this has been entirely removed in the transgression of the first man, how do we read: \"Learn justice, you who inhabit the earth,\" and again: \"The just man lives from my faith,\" and: \"The just will possess the earth by inheritance,\" and: \"The eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and His ears are open to their prayers\"? Has innocence perished utterly, because its possessor neglected to stand in its first degree? I think not, for it is written: \"The innocent and the upright adhered to me,\" and again: \"Who will stand in His holy place? Innocent of hands and pure of heart,\" and again: \"The Lord will not deprive of goods those walking in innocence.\" Is the sanctification of the body to be believed entirely lost, because, with the members in a rebellious slave not preserving their servitude to him, the first dignity of purity was shattered? Not at all, for we read: \"That you may present your bodies as a living, holy sacrifice pleasing to God,\" and again: \"Be holy, for I am holy.\" Thus, in this kind of those goods which the carefree inhabitant of paradise had received from his benevolent author, the action has not perished, even if perfection has been lost. The chastity of these virtues, I say, has not perished, even if virginal integrity has been violated.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecce haereticus sub praetextu gratiae qualem uult hominem esse post gratiam","severity":"info","text":"Faustus frames the opponent as a heretic who, under the guise of grace, reduces man to passivity after grace. This sets up the rhetorical contrast between his own view and that of his opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libertum arbitrium","severity":"info","text":"Free will is defined here as consisting in love of innocence, operation of justice, and sanctification of the body. This tripartite definition is central to Faustus’s argument that free will persists after the Fall.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iustitiam discite, qui habitatis terram","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Isaiah 26:9 (Vulgate: 'discite iustitiam, qui habitatis terram'). Faustus uses it to argue that justice is still commanded, implying free will remains.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iustus autem ex fide mea uiuit","severity":"info","text":"Likely a loose citation of Psalm 37:3 (Vulgate: 'iustus autem ex fide mea vivit'). Faustus cites it to support the continued existence of justice after the Fall.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iusti hereditate possidebunt terram","severity":"info","text":"A reference to Psalm 37:29 (Vulgate: 'iusti hereditabunt terram'). Faustus uses it to argue that justice is not lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"oculi domini super iustos et aures eius ad preces eorum","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Psalm 34:15-16 (Vulgate: 'oculi Domini super iustos... aures eius ad preces eorum'). Faustus cites it to show divine attention to the just, implying their continued existence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is clear; no significant ambiguities."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"VIII. QVALITER INFIRMITAS LIBERI ARBITRII INTELLEGENDA SIT.\n\nSed interrogas et ais: quomodo intellegendum est infirmatum humanae mentis arbitrium ? adtenuata libertas eius ita gratiae adminicula plus requirit, sicut homo longa infirmitate confectus adiutoriis ac solaciis gressu titubante magis indiget. igitur sicut post inueteratam luxuriae consuetudinem reparatio continentiae multo labore constabit et sicut longo temulentiae usu captiuata sobrietas cum uiolentia rigidae crucis uix recipitur, quae prius, cum inlaesa teneretur, paruo negotio seruabatur, siquidem cum uoluptate quadam inuiolata conscientia possidetur, et quemadmodum post diuersa carnalium blandimenta uitiorum, quae facile prima aetas statum suum retinens cal-. care potuisset, cum magno luctamine uelut contra ardui montis ascensum ad uirtutis uiam reditur, ita humani arbitrii a deo concessa libertas florem uigoremque gratiae suae perdidit, tamen ipsa non periit, ut diuina munera non tam interdicta sibi sen- . tiat, quam cum summo labore ac sudore per adiutorii patrocinium sibi repetenda esse cognoscat.,","english":"VIII. HOW THE WEAKNESS OF FREE WILL IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.\n\nBut you ask and say: how is the weakening of the human mind’s free will to be understood? Its diminished liberty requires the supports of grace more, just as a man worn down by long illness has greater need of aids and comforts, his step faltering. Therefore, just as after a long-standing habit of luxury the restoration of continence will be achieved with great effort, and just as sobriety, once captive through long use of drunkenness, is scarcely recovered with the violence of a harsh cross—whereas before, when it was kept unimpaired, it was preserved with little trouble, since it is possessed with a certain pleasure by an inviolate conscience—and just as after various carnal allurements of vices, which an early age, retaining its state, could easily have trampled, one returns to the path of virtue with great struggle, as if against the ascent of a steep mountain, so the freedom of the human will, granted by God, lost the flower and vigor of its grace, yet itself did not perish, so that it perceives divine gifts not so much as forbidden to it, but rather recognizes that they are to be reclaimed by itself through the patronage of assistance with the utmost labor and sweat.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"infirmatum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'infirmatum' (weakened) to describe free will, not 'peremptum' (destroyed), preserving a diminished but real capacity. This is central to his semi-Pelagian position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VIII. QVALITER INFIRMITAS LIBERI ARBITRII INTELLEGENDA SIT","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading introduces a quaestio format: Faustus poses a question from an interlocutor and answers with a series of analogies (illness, luxury, drunkenness, vice) leading to a conclusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiae adminicula","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'gratiae adminicula' (supports of grace) echoes earlier Latin theological usage (e.g., Tertullian, Augustine) but here emphasizes grace as aid for a weakened will, not as sole agent of salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut homo longa infirmitate confectus","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of a man weakened by illness requiring more aid parallels similar imagery in Augustine's 'De Spiritu et Littera' and later in Cassian's 'Collationes', but Faustus uses it to argue for residual free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"libertas ... non periit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's assertion that freedom 'did not perish' was a key point condemned at the Second Council of Orange (529), which insisted on grace's priority over any residual human capacity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'gratiae suae' could refer to grace belonging to free will (its original vigor) or to divine grace; the translation takes it as the former, consistent with Faustus's argument."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Audi legislatorem de uoluntatis arbitrio disputantem, cum dicit: posui ante faciem tuam uitam et mortem, bonum et malum. elige uitam, ut uiuas, et iterum: uiam ueritatis elegi, iudicia tua non sum oblitus. uides quod neminem hic premit fati uel inpositae perditionis necessitas, ubi conpetit eligendi potestas, neque in unam partem trahit praedestinatio, ubi utriusque partis defertur electio. item: fiat manus tua, ut saluum me faciat, quia mandata tua elegi, hoc est dicere: sollicitabat me quidem in sinistram partem perniciosa mundi uoluptas, sed, in dexteram mandatorum tuorum traxit utilitas. itaque cum gentes ipsae ad mali boniue iudicium insito sibi dirigantur arbitrio, quanto magis moderari ad bonam partem uoluntatis suae libertatem potest humilis Christianus, qui possibilitatem suam in dei adiutoris uirtute constituit, ad quem dicitur: si uis perfectus esse, uade, uende quae habes, et iterum: uis sanus fieri? conscius, quantum cordi humano potens factor indiderit, uoluntatem ipsius, quem est sanaturus, interrogat. nam et alio loco populum ambulantem concessa arbitrii libertate sic arguit: educ foras populum caecum et oculos habentem, surdum et aures ei sunt. hic quod surdus et caecus est, contumaciae esse intellegitur, non naturae.","english":"Hear the lawgiver disputing about the will’s free choice, when he says: “I have set before your face life and death, good and evil. Choose life, that you may live,” and again: “I have chosen the way of truth, I have not forgotten your judgments.” You see that no necessity of fate or imposed perdition presses anyone here, where the power of choice is fitting, nor does predestination drag toward one part, where the election of both parts is offered. Likewise: “Let your hand be, that it may save me, because I have chosen your commandments”; that is to say: the pernicious pleasure of the world was indeed soliciting me toward the left part, but the utility of your commandments drew me to the right. And so, since even the Gentiles themselves are directed by an inborn free choice to the judgment of good and evil, how much more can a humble Christian, who places his own capability in the power of God’s help, moderate his will’s freedom toward the good part, to whom it is said: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have,” and again: “Do you wish to become healthy?” Conscious of how much the powerful Creator has bestowed upon the human heart, he questions the will of the one whom he is about to heal. For also in another place, he rebukes the people walking with the granted freedom of choice thus: “Lead out the blind people who have eyes, the deaf who have ears.” Here, that he is deaf and blind is understood to be from obstinacy, not from nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"posui ante faciem tuam uitam et mortem, bonum et malum. elige uitam, ut uiuas","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (LXX/Vulgate), where God sets life and death, good and evil before the people and exhorts them to choose life.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uiam ueritatis elegi, iudicia tua non sum oblitus","severity":"info","text":"Likely a conflation of Psalm 118:30 (Vulgate) and Psalm 118:176, expressing a personal choice of truth and remembrance of God's judgments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"fiat manus tua, ut saluum me faciat, quia mandata tua elegi","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Psalm 118:173-174 (Vulgate), where the psalmist asks for God's hand to save him because he has chosen the commandments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"si uis perfectus esse, uade, uende quae habes","severity":"info","text":"A reference to Jesus' instruction to the rich young man in Matthew 19:21, urging renunciation of possessions for perfection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uis sanus fieri?","severity":"info","text":"This alludes to Jesus' question to the paralytic in Mark 2:2-3 (or John 5:6), where healing is conditional on the will of the sick person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"educ foras populum caecum et oculos habentem, surdum et aures ei sunt","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Isaiah 6:9-10 (LXX/Vulgate), where the prophet is commanded to lead out a people who are blind and deaf by obstinacy, not nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'legislatorem' could refer to Moses or to God as lawgiver; the context suggests Moses as the speaker of Deuteronomy.","The phrase 'fiat manus tua' is ambiguous in Latin; it may be a misreading or variant of 'fiat manus tua' (let your hand be) from the Psalms."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"et in euangelio aperte ostendit inditum esse homini bonae uoluntatis affectum: si quis, inquit, uult post me uenire, abneget se ipsum sibi et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me, hoc est dicere: meae miserationis est, ut uoceris, sed tuae uoluntati conmissum est, ut sequaris.\n\nUideamus si per otium ad se inuitet hominem deus. abneget, inquit, se ipsum sibi, id est, qui malus est bonus esse contendat et supplicans dicat: et ex uoluntate mea confitebor illi. iubetur unusquisque ex uoluntate conuerti, ne peccator fortasse desperet in melius se posse mutari. si quis, inquit, uult post me uenire, abneget se ipsum sibi, id est, alter efficiatur ex altero. patientia uincat iracundiam, temperantia refrenet concupiscentiam, humilitas exturbet superbiam, crux conterat uoluptatem. quis haec sine labore cordis, sine adflictione carnis, sine magno hominis utriusque luctamine dormienti sibi per solam gratiam aestimet conferenda? abneget se ipsum sibi, hoc est dicere: o homo, non putes te ita ab auctore tuo conditum, ut de iniquo iustus, de luxurioso castus, de maliuolo benignus esse non possis. quod ut consequi ualeas, non factura in te est mutanda, sed uita. nunc ista dicentes non laborem gratiae coaequamus, sed omnino gratiam sine comparatione praeponimus.","english":"And in the Gospel he clearly shows that the affection of good will is implanted in man: “If anyone,” he says, “wishes to come after me, let him deny himself to himself and take up his cross and follow me.” This is to say: It is by my mercy that you are called, but it is entrusted to your will that you follow.\n\nLet us see if God invites man to himself through leisure. “Let him deny himself to himself,” he says, that is, let him who is evil strive to be good and say in supplication: “And from my will I will confess to him.” Each one is commanded to convert from his will, lest the sinner perhaps despair of being able to change for the better. “If anyone,” he says, “wishes to come after me, let him deny himself to himself,” that is, let him become one thing from another. Let patience overcome anger, temperance restrain lust, humility expel pride, the cross crush pleasure. Who would think these things are conferred upon a sleeping man through grace alone, without labor of the heart, without affliction of the flesh, without the great struggle of both parts of man? “Let him deny himself to himself,” this is to say: O man, do not think you were so created by your author that you cannot become just from unjust, chaste from lustful, kind from malevolent. To be able to achieve this, it is not your nature that must be changed, but your life. In saying these things, we do not equate labor with grace, but we entirely prefer grace without comparison.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"si quis, inquit, uult post me uenire, abneget se ipsum sibi et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts a Gospel saying not found verbatim in the canonical texts; it echoes Matt 16:24 and the synoptic call to self-denial and cross-bearing, but the phrasing is his own.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"bonae uoluntatis affectum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'affection of good will' is a key term in Faustus's semi-Pelagian anthropology, denoting an innate but not fully efficacious disposition toward virtue that requires human effort to activate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam sine comparatione praeponimus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus insists grace is 'without comparison' superior to human labor, a rhetorical move to distance himself from Pelagianism while still defending the necessity of human will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Uideamus si per otium ad se inuitet hominem deus","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question introduces a dialectical movement: Faustus anticipates an objection (that grace alone suffices) and refutes it by emphasizing the labor required for conversion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"patientia uincat iracundiam, temperantia refrenet concupiscentiam, humilitas exturbet superbiam, crux conterat uoluptatem","severity":"info","text":"The fourfold moral schema echoes classical and patristic lists of virtues overcoming vices, common in ascetic literature (e.g., Cassian, Evagrius), but Faustus applies it to argue for human agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et ex uoluntate mea confitebor illi","severity":"caution","text":"This phrase is not a direct biblical quotation; it may be Faustus's paraphrase of a psalm verse (e.g., Ps 31[32]:5) or a liturgical formula. The source is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Gospel saying 'si quis uult post me uenire...' is not a direct canonical citation; Faustus may be quoting a variant text or composing a synthetic saying.","The phrase 'et ex uoluntate mea confitebor illi' lacks a clear scriptural referent; it could be a loose paraphrase or a non-extant liturgical source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"VIIII. QVOMODO INTELLEGENDUM SIT: NON UOLENTIS NEQVE CURRENTIS, SED MISERENTIS EST DEI, UEL ILLUD: NON UENI UOCARE IUSTOS, SED PECCATORES IN PAENITENTIAM.\n\nSed dicis: in tantum nihil est hominis, sed totum gratiae dei, ut apostolus dicat: non uolentis neque currentis, sicut sibi . arrogat Iudaeus ex lege uel Pelagius ex liberi arbitrii praesumptione, sed licet cum hominis seruitute totum tamen miserentis est dei, non uolentis neque currentis. hic illum euidenter notat et arguit, qui solum se sibi sufficere sine manu adiuuantis existimat. ceterum ad eum, qui cum miserantis auxilio conatus suos iungit, non dicit: non uolentis neque currentis, sed multo aliter ad eum loquitur: sic, inquit, currite, ut conprehendatis, et iterum: tam bene currebatis. quis uos inpediuit ueritati non oboedire? si non est etiam uoluntas expectanda currentis, quare dicitur: ego igitur sic curro, non quasi in incertum, et iterum: cursum consummaui, fidem seruaui? non uolentis neque currentis: ipse sibi obtexit errorum tenebras, qui in scripturis sanctis uel personas nescit interrogare uel causas. hoc loco apostolus gentium asserens fidem Iudaeorum superbiam coercet et conprimit, qui sibi iustitiam de legis operibus adrogabant ac dei misericordiam et gratiam respuebant, qui suam, ut dicit apostolus, quaerentes statuere iustitiam iustitiae dei non sunt subiecti.","english":"CHAPTER 9. HOW IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD: “IT IS NOT OF THE WILLING NOR OF THE RUNNING, BUT OF THE PITYING GOD,” OR THAT PASSAGE: “I HAVE NOT COME TO CALL THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT SINNERS TO PENITENCE.”\n\nBut you say: man is nothing, but everything is of the grace of God, to such an extent that the Apostle says: it is not of the willing nor of the running, as the Jew arrogates to himself from the law or Pelagius from the presumption of free will, but although with the servitude of man, yet everything is of the pitying God, not of the willing nor of the running. Here he clearly marks and refutes the one who thinks that he alone suffices for himself without the helping hand. But to the one who joins his own efforts with the help of the pitying one, he does not say: not of the willing nor of the running, but he speaks to him quite otherwise: “Run,” he says, “in such a way that you may seize,” and again: “You were running so well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?” If the will of the runner is not also to be awaited, why is it said: “I therefore run thus, not as into uncertainty,” and again: “I have completed the course, I have kept the faith”? “Not of the willing nor of the running”: he has woven for himself the shadows of error who does not know how to question either the persons or the causes in the holy scriptures. In this passage the Apostle of the Gentiles, asserting the faith, curbs and restrains the pride of the Jews, who arrogated righteousness to themselves from the works of the law and rejected the mercy and grace of God, who, as the Apostle says, seeking to establish their own righteousness, were not subject to the righteousness of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VIIII. QVOMODO INTELLEGENDUM SIT","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading introduces a new topic: the correct interpretation of two Pauline phrases. The structure contrasts a misreading (attributed to an opponent) with Faustus’s own exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non uolentis neque currentis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Romans 9:16, where Paul denies that human will or effort alone achieves salvation, attributing it to God’s mercy. Faustus cites it to refute a Pelagian or Jewish over-reliance on human agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non ueni uocare iustos, sed peccatores in paenitentiam","severity":"info","text":"This saying is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of Christ’s mission, possibly alluding to Matthew 9:13 or Luke 5:32. Faustus uses it to argue that grace calls sinners, not the self-righteous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Iudaeus ex lege uel Pelagius ex liberi arbitrii praesumptione","severity":"info","text":"Faustus conflates Jewish legalism and Pelagian free will as twin errors. This reflects the 5th-century debate on grace, where Pelagius emphasized human effort, and Faustus (a semi-Pelagian) sought a middle ground.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sic, inquit, currite, ut conprehendatis","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of 1 Corinthians 9:24, where Paul urges the Corinthians to “run” in faith. Faustus uses it to show that Paul does not dismiss human effort when it cooperates with grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"tam bene currebatis. quis uos inpediuit ueritati non oboedire?","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Galatians 5:7, where Paul rebukes the Galatians for stopping their spiritual progress. Faustus cites it to argue that human will is involved in perseverance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'non ueni uocare iustos, sed peccatores in paenitentiam' is not a direct biblical quotation; it may be a summary or a misremembered verse. The reading taken is that Faustus paraphrases Christ’s call to repentance.","The identity of the opponent ('dicis') is unclear; it could be a Pelagian or a radical Augustinian. The reading taken is that Faustus addresses a semi-Pelagian interlocutor who overstates human passivity."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Quos et alio loco simulata iustificatione et obliqua per ironiam uoce condemnat dicens: non ueni uocare iustos, sed peccatores ad paenitentiam. iustos, id est, qui sibi de praesumptione iustitiae blandiuntur, sicut et alio loco iustificantem se respuit Pharisaeum et accusantem se suscipit publicanum. non ueni, inquit, uocare iustos, sed peccatores ad paenitentiam, id est, non ueni Iudaeos ex lege sibi iustitiae priuilegia uindicantes, sed potius gentes requiro ex fide peccatorum paenitentiam profitentes. nam ad ipsorum elationem et alio loco ita dicit: non est opus sanis medico, sed qui male habent. Iudaei autem iustos et sanos se iactabant esse, sed non erant. quis autem sanum se sano corde dicere auderet, quando uniuersitas generis humani uno serpentis morsu percussa languebat? una est ergo spes sanitatis infirmo, si se • coram medico agnoscat infirmum. dignum uero est, ut remedio careat, qui aegritudinem suam scire dissimulat. et propterea maius gaudii erit angelis in caelo super uno peccatore paenitentiam agente, quam super nonaginta nouem iustis, qui non indigent paenitentia. quis non hoc loco uere iustos esse credat hos, qui non indigent paenitentia? sed nemo magis eget salute, quam qui se non intellegit indigere. et ideo magis uerus ille pastor exultat super una oue, quae ab errore reuocata est, quam super nonaginta nouem ouibus, quae non errauerunt.","english":"Whom elsewhere, with feigned justification and an oblique voice through irony, he condemns, saying: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to penitence.” The righteous, that is, those who flatter themselves from the presumption of righteousness, just as elsewhere he rejects the Pharisee who justifies himself and receives the publican who accuses himself. “I have not come,” he says, “to call the righteous, but sinners to penitence,” that is, I have not come to the Jews who claim for themselves privileges of righteousness from the law, but rather I seek the Gentiles who profess penitence for sins from faith. For to their pride he also says elsewhere: “There is no need of a physician for the healthy, but for those who are ill.” But the Jews boasted that they were righteous and healthy, yet they were not. Who, however, with a sound heart would dare to call himself sound, when the whole of the human race, struck by one serpent’s bite, lay languishing? Therefore, there is one hope of health for the sick person: if he acknowledges himself sick before the physician. But it is fitting that he who feigns ignorance of his own illness should lack a remedy. And for that reason, there will be greater joy for the angels in heaven over one sinner doing penitence than over ninety-nine righteous who do not need penitence. Who would not believe, at this point, that those who do not need penitence are truly righteous? But no one is more in need of health than he who does not understand that he is in need. And therefore that true shepherd rejoices more over one sheep that has been recalled from error than over ninety-nine sheep that have not gone astray.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non ueni uocare iustos, sed peccatores ad paenitentiam","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts a logion of Jesus (cf. Matt 9:13?; Luke 15:7?) not found verbatim in canonical Gospels, likely from apocryphal or patristic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Iudaeos ex lege sibi iustitiae priuilegia uindicantes","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts Jews claiming righteousness from the Law with Gentiles seeking penitence through faith, reflecting anti-Jewish polemic common in Latin patristic literature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"non est opus sanis medico, sed qui male habent","severity":"info","text":"This medical metaphor echoes a common patristic topos (cf. Augustine, Serm. 88.1; Jerome, Ep. 52.1) and may derive from a lost Greek source or oral tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"una est ergo spes sanitatis infirmo, si se • coram medico agnoscat infirmum","severity":"info","text":"The interpunct • in the Latin marks a textual crux; the phrase likely means 'if he acknowledges himself sick before the physician', but the punctuation may indicate a scribal insertion or variant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"nonaginta nouem iustis","severity":"info","text":"The ninety-nine righteous sheep recalls Luke 15:4-7 (the parable of the lost sheep), but Faustus inverts the numbers to emphasize joy over one repentant sinner.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"simulata iustificatione et obliqua per ironiam uoce","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus claims Christ speaks 'with feigned justification and oblique voice through irony', but the scriptural basis for this rhetorical reading is uncertain; it may reflect Faustus's own exegetical method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the logion 'non ueni uocare iustos, sed peccatores ad paenitentiam' is unclear; it may be a conflation of Gospel sayings or a citation from a non-canonical tradition.","The interpunct in 'si se • coram medico' may indicate a textual variant or scribal correction; the intended reading is 'if he acknowledges himself sick before the physician'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"et quis a mortiferi erroris malo esse possit inmunis, cum propheta testetur: omnes nos quasi oues errauimus, unusquisque in uiam suam declinauit? quam dolenda caecitas Iudaeorum uiam negato saluatore perdiderat et errorem suum scire nolebat.\n\nHic ergo sermo diuinus sub appellatione iustorum sine praeiudicio sensus alterius magis Iudaeorum notat atque increpat arrogantiam. nam cum denarius et centesimus numerus iustos perfectosque designet, nonus et nonagesimus iniustos et peccatores ipsa inperfecti numeri ratione designat. itaque hoc loco Iudaei elationem, qui se ex lege iustificans redemptoris misericordiam repudiauerat, apostoli doctrina castigat dicendo: non uolentis, quia in humili Christiano ipsa oboedientia et subiectio cursus est et ascensus, in Iudaei elatione lapsus est et decursus. non, inquit, uolentis neque currentis. quomodo uox ista pertinere potest ad fidelem et Christi legibus subditum, ad quem dicitur: et in lege domini fuit uoluntas eius, et quod praefati sumus: si quis uult post me uenire, et: uoluntarie sacrificabo tibi, domine, et: qui uoluerit animam suam saluam facere, perdet illam, et qui perdiderit animam suam propter me, inueniet illam?","english":"and who can be immune from the evil of deadly error, when the prophet testifies: we have all wandered like sheep, each one has turned aside into his own way? How lamentable was the blindness of the Jews, who had lost the way by denying the Saviour and were unwilling to know their error.\n\nTherefore this divine discourse, under the appellation of the righteous, without prejudice to another sense, rather marks and rebukes the arrogance of the Jews. For just as the number ten and the number one hundred designate the righteous and the perfect, so the number nine and the number ninety designate the unjust and sinners by the very principle of the imperfect number. Hence in this place the Apostle’s teaching chastises the pride of the Jews, who, justifying themselves from the Law, had rejected the mercy of the Redeemer, by saying: not of the willing, because in the humble Christian obedience and subjection themselves are a course and an ascent, while in the pride of the Jew there is a fall and a descent. Not, he says, of the willing nor of the running. How can that statement pertain to the faithful man subject to Christ’s laws, to whom it is said: and in the law of the Lord was his will, and what we have cited above: if anyone wishes to come after me, and: I will willingly sacrifice to you, Lord, and: he who wishes to save his soul will lose it, and he who loses his soul for my sake will find it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"omnes nos quasi oues errauimus, unusquisque in uiam suam declinauit","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Isaiah 53:6 (Vulgate: 'omnes nos quasi oves erravimus'), though the exact phrasing is not a direct quotation; Faustus adapts the prophetic voice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"denarius et centesimus numerus ... nonus et nonagesimus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus employs a numerological scheme: ten and one hundred signify perfection (righteous), while nine and ninety signify imperfection (sinners). This reflects patristic exegesis, e.g., Augustine's use of numbers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"non uolentis neque currentis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'not of the willing nor of the running,' is a citation from a lost source, likely a Pauline or pseudo-Pauline text, used by Faustus to argue against Pelagian emphasis on human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et in lege domini fuit uoluntas eius","severity":"info","text":"This may allude to Psalm 119:5 (Vulgate: 'utinam in lege Domini esset voluntas eius'), though the wording is adapted; Faustus uses it to counter the 'non uolentis' claim.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"si quis uult post me uenire","severity":"info","text":"This likely refers to Matthew 19:24 or a similar gospel invitation, though not verbatim; Faustus cites it to show that willing is commended in Scripture.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntarie sacrificabo tibi, domine","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Psalm 54:8 (Vulgate: 'voluntarie sacrificabo tibi, Domine'), though the exact form is adapted; Faustus uses it to support voluntary devotion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the phrase 'non uolentis neque currentis' is not identified; it may be from a lost work or a misremembered Pauline passage. The numerological scheme (9, 90 vs. 10, 100) is not standard in patristic sources and may be Faustus's own invention."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"uide quam magnum opus et quam arduum perdendae et inueniendae animae etiam in hominis uoluntate constituit et propterea ita conclusit: filius enim hominis uenturus est in gloria patris sui et tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera sua. aduerte quia, dum dicit secundum opera sua, salutem hominis non in praedestinatione factoris, sed in operatione famulantis largitor gratiae conlocauit. ergo hic non condicio hominis, sed conuersatio designatur et ideo alio loco dicit: omnes stabimus ante tribunal dei, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis, prout gessit, siue bonum siue malum. agnosce hoc loco non aliena generis uel originis mala, sed propria corporis gesta nouissimo discutienda iudicio.\n\nQuapropter ex homine, qui in Christo renatus est, non hoc constat in examen uocandum esse, quod natus est, sed quod operatus est. si ergo actus hominis non est etiam uoluntatis, quomodo dicit: si uolueritis et me audieritis, bona terrae comedetis? itaque conditor utriusque, id est exterioris et interioris hominis deus, sicut potentia sua corporis humani membra disposuit, ita ordinatione sua ministerium usumque membrorum homini agere ac dispensare permisit.","english":"See what a great and arduous work—the losing and finding of a soul—he places even in man’s will, and for that reason he concluded thus: “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father, and then he will render to each according to his works.” Note that, when he says “according to his works,” the giver of grace placed man’s salvation not in the predestination of the maker, but in the operation of the servant. Therefore here it is not man’s condition that is indicated, but his conduct; and for that reason he says elsewhere: “We will all stand before the tribunal of God, so that each one may render account of his own body, according as he has conducted himself, whether for good or for evil.” Recognize in this passage that it is not the evils of another’s race or origin, but the deeds of one’s own body that are to be examined at the final judgment.\n\nFor this reason, from a man who has been reborn in Christ, it is not what he was born that is to be called into judgment, but what he has done. If, therefore, a man’s act is not also a matter of will, how does he say: “If you will and listen to me, you will eat the good things of the earth”? Thus the creator of both—that is, of the outer and the inner man—God, just as by his power he disposed the members of the human body, so by his ordering he permitted man to perform and administer the ministry and use of those members.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"filius enim hominis uenturus est in gloria patris sui et tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera sua","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical quotation but a conflation of eschatological themes (cf. Matt 16:27; John 5:22; Rev 22:12). Faustus adapts scriptural language to support his argument that salvation depends on works, not predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"omnes stabimus ante tribunal dei, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis, prout gessit, siue bonum siue malum","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of 2 Cor 5:10 (Vulgate: 'omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Dei') and possibly Rom 2:6-7, adapted to emphasize personal accountability for bodily deeds at judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"si uolueritis et me audieritis, bona terrae comedetis","severity":"info","text":"An apparent allusion to Deut 8:1-3 or a sapiential saying (cf. Prov 1:10), but not a verbatim Vulgate citation. Faustus uses it to link will and action in moral agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"operatio","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts 'operatio' (active work) with 'praedestinatio' (divine foreordination), a key move in the Semi-Pelagian controversy. The term underscores human effort in salvation, opposing Augustinian predestinarianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"exterioris et interioris hominis","severity":"info","text":"This Pauline distinction (cf. 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16) is used by Faustus to separate the physical body (exterior) from the soul or will (interior), arguing that God permits human agency over bodily actions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a scriptural citation (filius enim hominis) to an interpretive gloss (aduerte quia), then to a parallel citation (omnes stabimus), and concludes with a rhetorical question (si ergo...). This pattern of citation, gloss, and argument is typical of Faustus's exegetical method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'filius enim hominis uenturus est in gloria patris sui' may conflate Christological and eschatological traditions; the exact source is uncertain. 'Bona terrae comedetis' is not a precise biblical quotation; its origin is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"et sicut dexteram in omni homine ipse formauit, sed in potestate hominis posuit, ut eam quo uellet extenderet et ad diuersa opera conferret., pari modo sensum rationis et arbitrium uoluntatis in unamquamque animam inseruit inspirauit infudit, sed eam in manu humani consilii moderandam et exercendam reliquit eiusque officia iuri hominis dominioque conmisit, ut, si malum deprauatus adpeteret, in arbitrii libertate permissum sibi sciret, licere nesciret, si autem bonum cuperet, actionem et perfectionem eius a conditore deposceret, ad mercedem uero illius officiosa deuotio pertineret. et ideo hominis formator et rector bonae uoluntatis homini deputauit usum, sibi reseruauit effectum. non ergo aequum iustumque uni uelle concessit et alteri denegauit, sed sicut omni homini manum oculum gressumque donauit, ita similiter omni homini uoluntatem, ut eam in quaslibet partes uersaret, indulsit. iustitia ergo in homine non personale, sed generale et publicum dei munus est. aditus capessendae salutis quasi fons quidam in medium mundi huius expositus et in commune concessus ad hauriendum uniuersis patet, ut largitori merito reus sit, qui haurire neglexerit.","english":"and just as He Himself formed the right hand in every man, but placed it in man’s power to extend it wherever he wished and to apply it to various works, in like manner He inserted, inspired, and infused the sense of reason and the will’s choice into each soul, but left it to be moderated and exercised in the hand of human counsel, and committed its functions to man’s right and dominion, so that if, corrupted, it should seek evil, it would know that it was permitted to itself in the freedom of choice, but not that it was lawful; if, however, it should desire good, it would demand its action and perfection from the Creator, while to its reward would belong the dutiful devotion. And therefore the former and ruler of man assigned the use of good will to man, and reserved the effect for Himself. So He did not deem it just and right to grant will to one and deny it to another, but just as He gave hand, eye, and gait to every man, so likewise He granted will to every man, that he might turn it to whatever parts he wished. Therefore justice in man is not a personal, but a general and public gift of God. The approach to attaining salvation, like a kind of fountain set in the midst of this world and granted in common, lies open to all for drawing, so that the giver may justly hold guilty the one who has neglected to draw.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"pari modo sensum rationis et arbitrium uoluntatis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus draws an analogy between the physical hand and the rational will, both given by God but left to human direction, to argue for free will within a grace-based framework.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"arbitrium uoluntatis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'arbitrium uoluntatis' (will's choice) is central to Faustus's semi-Pelagian position, distinguishing the capacity for choice from its exercise, which requires divine aid.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"non ergo aequum iustumque uni uelle concessit et alteri denegauit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus counters the predestinarian view that God grants will to some and denies it to others, a key point in the 5th-century controversy over grace and free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"et ideo hominis formator et rector bonae uoluntatis homini deputauit usum, sibi reseruauit effectum","severity":"info","text":"This sentence summarizes Faustus's distinction: God assigns the use of good will to humans but reserves the effect (i.e., the actual achievement of good) for himself, structuring the argument around divine and human roles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"aditus capessendae salutis quasi fons quidam in medium mundi huius expositus","severity":"info","text":"The image of salvation as a public fountain available to all was later criticized by Augustinian opponents as minimizing the need for grace, reflecting Faustus's semi-Pelagian stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'licere nesciret' is ambiguous: it could mean 'he would not know it to be lawful' (as translated) or 'he would not know that it is permitted'; the reading taken emphasizes the moral constraint on free will."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Omnibus itaque oblatum est, quod ab omnibus reposcendum est. nam si circa hominis, ut dicunt, salutem specialis est dispensatio, nescio quomodo generalis poterit esse discussio. sed cum dicat: omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal dei, non eam ab omnibus terribiliter exigeret, nisi omnibus misericorditer obtulisset. igitur in procinctu militiae constitutum ita apostolus adhortatur: labora quasi bonus miles Christi. nemo militans deo inplicat se negotiis saecularibus, ut ei placeat, cui se probauit. nam qui in agone contendit, non coronatur, nisi legitime certauerit, et iterum: laborantem agricolam oportet primum de fructibus accipere. audi et alio loco apostolum non tua otia praedicantem: de cetero, inquit, fratres, confortamini in domino et in potentia uirtutis eius. induite uos armatura dei, ut possitis stare aduersus insidias diaboli. quia non est nobis conluctatio aduersus carnem et sanguinem, sed aduersus principes et potestates, aduersus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum, contra spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus. propterea accipite armaturam dei, ut possitis resistere in die malo et in omnibus perfecti stare. state ergo succincti lumbos uestros in caritate,. induti lorica iustitiae et calceati pedes in praeparatione euangelii pacis, in omnibus sumentes scutum fidei, in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere.","english":"Therefore, it is offered to all, and it is to be demanded from all. For if, as they say, the dispensation concerning man’s salvation is special, I do not see how the judgment can be general. But since it says: we must all appear before the tribunal of God, He would not terrifically demand it from all unless He had mercifully offered it to all. Thus, the apostle exhorts the one placed on the battlefield of service: labor as a good soldier of Christ. No one serving God entangles himself in worldly affairs, so as to please the one to whom he has proved himself. For he who contends in the contest is not crowned unless he has fought lawfully, and again: the laboring farmer must first receive from the fruits. Hear also in another place the apostle not preaching your idleness: For the rest, he says, brothers, be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of His might. Clothe yourselves with the armor of God, so that you can stand against the snares of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens. Therefore, take up the armor of God, so that you can resist on the evil day and stand perfect in all things. So stand, girded in your loins with charity, clad in the breastplate of righteousness, and shod in the preparation of the gospel of peace, taking up in all things the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the fiery darts of the wicked one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal dei","severity":"info","text":"This echoes 2 Cor 5:10 (Vg: 'omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal dei'), a Pauline warning of universal judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"labora quasi bonus miles Christi","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of 2 Tim 2:3 (Vg: 'labora ut bonus miles Christi'), urging steadfastness in spiritual combat.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo militans deo inplicat se negotiis saecularibus","severity":"info","text":"Likely alludes to 2 Tim 2:4 (Vg: 'nemo militans deo implicet se negotiis saecularibus'), reinforcing detachment from worldly affairs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"confortamini in domino et in potentia uirtutis eius","severity":"info","text":"A conflation of Eph 6:10 (Vg: 'confortamini in Domino') and Eph 6:10b (Vg: 'in potentia virtutis eius'), part of an extended military metaphor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"militiae","severity":"info","text":"The military imagery (miles, militia, armatura) reflects early Christian ascetic rhetoric, common in Faustus's milieu, opposing semi-Pelagian views on grace and effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"igitur ... ita ... et iterum ... audi et alio loco","severity":"info","text":"Faustus builds a cumulative argument by stringing scriptural exhortations, moving from general principle to specific commands, typical of his rhetorical style.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in procinctu militiae constitutum' is ambiguous: it may mean 'on the verge of military service' or 'in the battle line of service'; the translation adopts the latter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"cum dicat: ut possitis stare aduersus insidias diaboli, et iterum: ut possitis resistere in die malo, et in consequenti: sumentes scutum fidei, in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere, apertissime ostendit a deo possibilitatem arbitrii omni homini fuisse concessam, qua ei promptum esset non solum carni suae resistere, sed etiam diabolo repugnare, de quo et alio loco dicit: uigilate, inquit, quia aduersarius uester diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem deuoret.\n\nSi huic aduersario iam certos quosque inposita, quomodo asseris, originis necessitas deputasset, non quaereret quos deciperet nec deputatis uigilare prodesset. sed non ita est. nam sicut hostis omnibus admouetur, ita omnibus praesidii et adiutorii dextera non negatur et orantibus ac uigilantibus misericordiae benignitate succurritur, quae utique pulsantibus magis ex deuotione quam ex praedestinatione defertur.","english":"since it says: that you may be able to stand against the snares of the devil, and again: that you may be able to resist on the evil day, and in what follows: taking up the shield of faith, in which you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one, it shows most clearly that the possibility of the will was granted by God to every man, by which it would be ready for him not only to resist his own flesh, but also to fight against the devil, concerning which he says in another place: be watchful, he says, because your adversary the devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour.\n\nIf this adversary had already been assigned to certain individuals by the necessity of origin, as you assert, he would not seek whom to deceive, nor would it profit those assigned to be watchful. But it is not so. For just as the enemy is brought near to all, so the right hand of protection and assistance is not denied to all, and mercy’s kindness comes to the aid of those who pray and keep watch, which is certainly offered to those who knock more from devotion than from predestination.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ut possitis stare aduersus insidias diaboli","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Ephesians 6:11, where Paul exhorts believers to stand against the devil's snares, though the exact wording is not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ut possitis resistere in die malo","severity":"info","text":"Likely a reference to 1 Peter 3:14, which speaks of resisting in times of trial, though the phrasing is adapted to Faustus's argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sumentes scutum fidei, in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to Ephesians 6:16, where the shield of faith is used to quench fiery darts, a common patristic metaphor for resisting demonic attacks.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uigilate, inquit, quia aduersarius uester diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem deuoret","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of 1 Peter 5:8, where the devil is compared to a roaring lion seeking prey, urging vigilance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"possibilitas arbitrii","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'possibility of the will' to denote the innate human capacity for moral choice, granted by God, central to his anti-predestinarian stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"necessitas originis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase refers to the claim that original sin imposes a deterministic necessity on human will, which Faustus rejects, arguing for universal divine aid.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural sources for the first two quotations are not explicitly identified by Faustus; the echoes are plausible but not certain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"itaque inter ista, qui dicit solam gratiam sine exercitio operis et laboris posse sufficere, nonne tibi uidetur in hanc blasphemiae uocem alienata mente prorumpere: nemo uigilet, nemo ieiunet, nemo luxuriae inpugnationem abstinentiae contritione castiget, nemo bellum uitiis mortificatione exterioris indicat, nemo interioris curae plagas salutifera afflictione contendat, nemo libidini contradicat, nemo criminibus remedia per laborem maceratae carnis inquirat, nemo hostem inlecebris obscenae uoluptatis armatum crucis uiribus repercutiat, sed contra ignea inimici iacula nudum pectus exponat, nemo debita aeternae morti obnoxia elimosynarum sacrificiis redimat, nemo per opera misericordiae atque iustitiae curam uulneribus ferat, sed integra ea ad diem iudicii per se ferat ? ecce hic, qui paulo ante adsertor gratiae putabatur, intercludendo uiam salutis humanae inpugnator gratiae, per quam salus ipsa conlata est, inuenitur et in diaboli transisse consilia adiutor perditionis ostenditur.","english":"Therefore, among these things, does not one who says that grace alone, without the exercise of work and labor, can suffice, seem to you to burst forth with a deranged mind into this voice of blasphemy: let no one keep vigil, let no one fast, let no one chastise the assault of luxury by the contrition of abstinence, let no one declare war on vices by the mortification of the outer man, let no one contend with the wounds of inner care by health-bringing affliction, let no one contradict lust, let no one seek remedies for crimes through the labor of macerated flesh, let no one strike back at the enemy armed with the allurements of obscene pleasure by the forces of the cross, but let him expose his naked breast against the fiery darts of the foe, let no one redeem the debts liable to eternal death by the sacrifices of alms, let no one bring care to wounds through works of mercy and justice, but let him bear them whole to the day of judgment? Behold, this man, who a little while ago was thought to be an advocate of grace, by blocking the way of human salvation, is found to be an opponent of the grace through which salvation itself was conferred, and is shown to have passed over into the counsels of the devil as a helper of perdition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo ... nemo ... nemo","severity":"info","text":"The anaphoric series of 'nemo' clauses (nine in total) builds a rhetorical crescendo, listing ascetic practices that the opponent allegedly renders superfluous. The final clause shifts to 'sed integra ea ... per se ferat', contrasting active discipline with passive endurance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'gratia' here in a semi-Pelagian sense: grace is necessary but not sufficient without human effort. The opponent is accused of advocating 'sola gratia' (grace alone), which Faustus equates with moral laxity and blasphemy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"blasphemiae uocem","severity":"info","text":"The charge of 'blasphemy' reflects the intensity of the 5th-century grace controversy. Faustus, a semi-Pelagian, polemically associates the view that grace alone suffices with diabolical counsel, a common rhetorical tactic in the debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inpugnator gratiae","severity":"info","text":"Faustus inverts the label: the supposed advocate of grace is actually its opponent. This ironic reversal is typical of his argumentative strategy, later cited by opponents like Prosper of Aquitaine to show Faustus's misrepresentation of Augustinian grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Prosper of Aquitaine"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ignea inimici iacula","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'fiery darts of the foe' echoes Ephesians 6:16 (Vulgate: 'ignea tela'), where the devil's arrows are quenched by faith. Faustus uses the image to contrast passive exposure with active resistance, reinforcing his call for ascetic effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo uigilet, nemo ieiunet","severity":"caution","text":"The list of negated ascetic practices is hyperbolic and not a direct quotation from any known opponent. Faustus constructs a straw man to discredit the view that grace alone suffices, so the passage should not be read as a neutral report of opposing theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in hanc blasphemiae uocem alienata mente prorumpere' could be read as either a rhetorical question or an exclamation; the English draft treats it as a question, but the Latin syntax allows both.","The identity of 'qui paulo ante adsertor gratiae putabatur' is not specified; it may refer to a specific contemporary (e.g., a follower of Pelagius or Julian of Eclanum) or be a generic figure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"X. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT AD MALUM TANTUM LIBERUM ARBITRIUM PROMPTUM ESSE HOMINI, AD BONUM PRORSUS NON ESSE.\n\nUbi est illud prophetae: audite me, qui sequimini, quod iustum est, et quaeritis dominum, uel illud apostoli: nescitis quoniam, cui exhibetis uos seruos ad oboediendum, serui estis eius, cui oboedistis, siue peccati ad mortem siue oboeditionis ad iustitiam. dum ergo apostolus ab homine studia meliora deposcit, inesse ei facultatem bonae uoluntatis ostendit, quam cum praeferimus, aperte ordinationem atque mirabilem dispositionem sui praedicamus auctoris, quam ad iusta officia praeparatam idem apostolus demonstrat dicens: non ergo regnet peccatum in uestro mortali corpore, ut oboediatis concupiscentiis eius. sed neque exhibeatis membra uestra arma iniquitatis peccato, sed exhibete uos deo tamquam ex mortuis uiuentes et membra uestra arma iustitiae deo. item: humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis uestrae. sicut enim exhibuistis membra uestra seruire inmunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete membra uestra seruire iustitiae in sanctificationem. nonne hic ipsum eundemque hominem ad bonorum operum studia prouocat, quem prius malis deditum fuisse manifestat?","english":"X. AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THAT FREE WILL IS PROMPT ONLY TOWARD EVIL FOR MAN, AND TOWARD GOOD NOT AT ALL.\n\nWhere is that saying of the prophet: \"Hear me, you who follow what is just, and seek the Lord,\" or that of the apostle: \"Do you not know that, to whom you present yourselves as servants for obedience, you are servants of that which you have obeyed, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness\"? Therefore, while the apostle demands better efforts from man, he shows that the faculty of good will is present in him, which, when we prefer it, we openly proclaim the ordering and wonderful disposition of its author, prepared for righteous duties, as the same apostle demonstrates, saying: \"Therefore, let not sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its lusts. But neither present your members as weapons of iniquity to sin, but present yourselves to God as if living from the dead, and your members as weapons of righteousness to God.\" Again: \"I speak humanly on account of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you have presented your members to serve impurity and iniquity for iniquity, so now present your members to serve righteousness for sanctification.\" Does he not here provoke the very same man to the pursuit of good works, whom he previously showed to have been given over to evil?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"X. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT AD MALUM TANTUM LIBERUM ARBITRIUM PROMPTUM ESSE HOMINI, AD BONUM PRORSUS NON ESSE.","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading introduces the tenth section of the treatise, directly opposing the claim that free will is only effective for evil, not for good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"audite me, qui sequimini, quod iustum est, et quaeritis dominum","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Isaiah 51:1, where the prophet calls the people to follow justice and seek the Lord, used here to argue that humans are capable of seeking good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nescitis quoniam, cui exhibetis uos seruos ad oboediendum, serui estis eius, cui oboedistis, siue peccati ad mortem siue oboeditionis ad iustitiam","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 6:16, where Paul contrasts obedience to sin (leading to death) with obedience to righteousness, used to show the choice between good and evil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non ergo regnet peccatum in uestro mortali corpore, ut oboediatis concupiscentiis eius. sed neque exhibeatis membra uestra arma iniquitatis peccato, sed exhibet","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 6:12-13, where Paul exhorts believers not to let sin reign and to present their members as weapons of righteousness to God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis uestrae. sicut enim exhibuistis membra uestra seruire inmunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete membr","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 6:19, where Paul contrasts past service to impurity with present service to righteousness, used to argue for the capacity to change from evil to good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"dum ergo apostolus ab homine studia meliora deposcit, inesse ei facultatem bonae uoluntatis ostendit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that Paul’s demand for better efforts implies the presence of a faculty of good will in humans, countering the claim that free will is only for evil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is clear, but the exact scriptural references are paraphrased rather than verbatim, leaving some ambiguity in the precise verses cited."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Igitur dum liberi interemptor arbitrii in alterutram partem omnia ex praedestinatione statuta et definita esse pronuntiat, etiam suprema remedia paenitentiae sensu abruptae impietatis euacuat. et quomodo praedicat gratiam, qui misericordiam negat? quomodo uidetur asserere dei donum, cuius tollit auxilium? quomodo audet de scripturis praesumere testimonia, qui scripturarum conatur excludere beneficia? quomodo mihi dicitur: declina a malo et fac bonum, si iam malum declinare non possum? cur apostolus loquitur: mortificate, inquit, membra uestra, et iterum: eratis, inquit, aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino, ut filii lucis ambulate? quomodo mihi mutationem mei legis praedicator insinuat, si inmutabilem legem factor inposuit: expoliantes, inquit, uos ueterem hominem cum actibus eius induentes nouum? quomodo concretam peccati labem inseparabiliter ad originem et conditionem pertinere contendis, quam deponi et exui posse cognoscis ? intellege contrario te spiritu aduersus sanctum spiritum loqui, qui legis et prophetarum sacramenta, qui euangelicae ueritatis oracula mundo in adiutorium dedit et praecepta diuina per laboriosae seruitutis officia gratia cooperante seruantibus regnum caeleste promisit.","english":"Therefore, while the destroyer of free will declares that everything is established and defined by predestination in either direction, he also empties the supreme remedies of penance by the sense of his broken impiety. And how does he preach grace, who denies mercy? How does he seem to assert the gift of God, whose help he removes? How does he dare to presume upon testimonies from the Scriptures, who tries to exclude the benefits of the Scriptures? How am I told: \"Turn away from evil and do good,\" if I cannot turn away from evil? Why does the Apostle say: \"Mortify,\" he says, \"your members,\" and again: \"You were,\" he says, \"once darkness, but now light in the Lord, so walk as children of light\"? How does the preacher of my change insinuate a change in me, if the maker imposed an immutable law: \"Stripping off,\" he says, \"the old man with his deeds, putting on the new\"? How do you contend that the congealed stain of sin pertains inseparably to origin and condition, when you recognize that it can be laid down and put off? Understand that you speak with a spirit contrary to the Holy Spirit, who gave the sacraments of the law and the prophets, the oracles of evangelical truth to the world as help, and promised the heavenly kingdom through the offices of laborious servitude, with grace cooperating, to those who keep the divine precepts.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"libert interemptor arbitrii","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'destroyer of free will' is a polemical label for an opponent, likely a strict predestinarian, whom Faustus accuses of nullifying penance and divine mercy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"declina a malo et fac bonum","severity":"info","text":"This echoes a biblical exhortation, possibly from the Psalms or Proverbs, though not a direct quotation; it reflects the moral imperative Faustus defends.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"mortificate membra uestra","severity":"info","text":"Likely alludes to Colossians 3:5 or similar Pauline exhortations to mortify the flesh, used here to argue for human agency in moral transformation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Ephesians 5:8 or 1 John 1:5, emphasizing a change from darkness to light, which Faustus uses to counter claims of immutable predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"expoliantes uos ueterem hominem cum actibus eius induentes nouum","severity":"info","text":"A clear reference to Colossians 3:9, urging the stripping of the old self, which Faustus interprets as evidence for the possibility of moral renewal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"paenitentiae","severity":"info","text":"Penance is a key theme in the semi-Pelagian controversy; Faustus defends its efficacy against predestinarian views that would render it meaningless.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'destroyer of free will' is not specified; it may refer to a specific opponent like Lucidus or a general predestinarian position.","The scriptural allusions are paraphrastic and not exact citations, leaving some ambiguity in their precise source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Quapropter honorem sancti operis ac laboris de praemii magnitudine ac dignitate metire, cuius palmam tu pariter et coronam uilem absque dubio iudicas, si eam sine laboriosa contritione adprehendi posse confirmas. numquid potest sine magna operis intentione mandatum illud diuinae praeceptionis impleri? noli, inquit, uinci a malo, sed uince in bono malum, uel illud: nolite seduci, corrumpunt mores bonos conloquia mala. et quomodo inter haec asseris acceptum gratiae donum nullo modo periclitari, cum legas insitum moribus bonum a malo posse corrumpi? numquid otii erit, ut obtineatur, quod apostolus dicit: in omnibus tribulationem patimur, sed non angustamur, aporiamur, sed non destituimur, persecutionem patimur, sed non derelinquimur, deicimur, sed non perimus, et quod alio loco dicit: mihi autem mundus crucifixus est et ego mundo? si haec atque huiusmodi, quibus scripturae sanctae plenae sunt, per otium conparantur, cur non ab omnibus obtinentur? multum et remunerati gloriae et remuneratoris iustitiae derogabitur, si summi et inlustres uiri per quietem et desidiam coronantur. et ubi est illud propheticum: propter uerba labiorum tuorum ego custodiui uias duras?","english":"Therefore, measure the honor of holy work and labor by the magnitude and dignity of the reward, whose palm and crown you undoubtedly judge cheap if you affirm that it can be seized without laborious contrition. Can that commandment of divine precept be fulfilled without great intention of work? \"Do not,\" it says, \"be conquered by evil, but conquer evil in good,\" or that: \"Do not be led astray; evil conversations corrupt good morals.\" And how, amid these, do you assert that the received gift of grace is in no way endangered, when you read that good implanted in morals can be corrupted by evil? Will it be by idleness that what the apostle says is obtained: \"In all things we suffer tribulation, but we are not distressed; we are in difficulty, but we are not abandoned; we suffer persecution, but we are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we do not perish,\" and what he says elsewhere: \"But for me the world is crucified, and I to the world\"? If these and similar things, with which the holy scriptures are full, are acquired through idleness, why are they not obtained by all? Much will be detracted from the glory of the rewarded and the justice of the rewarder, if the highest and most illustrious men are crowned through quiet and laziness. And where is that prophetic saying: \"Because of the words of your lips, I have kept hard paths\"?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Quapropter honorem sancti operis ac laboris de praemii magnitudine ac dignitate metire","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that the value of holy work is measured by the reward's magnitude, countering the idea that grace is effortless.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"noli, inquit, uinci a malo, sed uince in bono malum","severity":"info","text":"This echoes a biblical exhortation, possibly from the Pauline corpus, urging active resistance to evil through good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nolite seduci, corrumpunt mores bonos conloquia mala","severity":"info","text":"A warning against corrupting influences, likely derived from Proverbs or similar wisdom literature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in omnibus tribulationem patimur, sed non angustamur, aporiamur, sed non destituimur, persecutionem patimur, sed non derelinquimur, deicimur, sed non perimus","severity":"info","text":"This passage, attributed to the apostle, emphasizes perseverance through tribulation without despair, possibly from 2 Corinthians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"mihi autem mundus crucifixus est et ego mundo","severity":"info","text":"A Pauline statement on renunciation of the world, echoing Galatians or a similar epistle.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"propter uerba labiorum tuorum ego custodiui uias duras","severity":"info","text":"A prophetic quotation, likely from the Psalms, emphasizing the hardship of following divine commands.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The specific scriptural sources for the quotations are not explicitly identified in the text, leaving their exact provenance open to interpretation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"si procuratio inquirendae salutis otiosum negotium est, communis et generalis et lata est uirtutis uia, ergo mentiuntur euangelia, cum dicunt: quam angusta porta et arta uia, quae ducit ad uitam, et pauci sunt, qui inueniunt eam. si opera cessabunt, honorem merita non habebunt, si nihil fuerit in labore arduum, nihil erit in uirtute pretiosum.\n\nSed haec ardua uia offendit ignauos et labor deterret otiosos. non ergo uiolentia praescientis, sed inoboedientia peccantis in causa est, sicut legimus: perierunt propter iniquitates suas uelut somnium exsurgentis, et iterum: discedite a me omnes, qui operamini iniquitatem, et alio loco: non custodierunt testamentum dei et in lege eius noluerunt ambulare. non ergo inpossibilitas ab opere iustitiae hominem reuocat, sed iniquitas et uoluntas. cum autem apostolus dicat: peccantem coram omnibus argue, nulla ratio est, qua uel arguendus sit uel condemnandus, qui delinquit inuitus. sed non ita est. nam cum per prophetam suum dominus dicat: unumquemque secundum uias suas iudicabo domus Israel, quicumque succubuit passioni, non praescientia urguente superatus est, sed peccato blandiente seductus est. adhuc negantes conatum laboris humani testimonium istud opponunt: nisi dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant, qui aedificant eam.","english":"If the management of seeking salvation is a leisurely business, and the way of virtue is common, general, and broad, then the Gospels lie when they say: how narrow the gate and strait the way which leads to life, and few are those who find it. If works will cease, merits will have no honor; if there is nothing arduous in labor, there will be nothing precious in virtue.\n\nBut this arduous way offends the slothful, and labor deters the idle. Therefore, it is not the violence of the one who foreknows, but the disobedience of the one who sins that is at fault, as we read: they perished because of their iniquities like a dream upon waking, and again: depart from me, all who work iniquity, and in another place: they did not keep the covenant of God and refused to walk in his law. Therefore, it is not impossibility that recalls man from the work of justice, but iniquity and will. When, moreover, the apostle says: rebuke the sinner before all, there is no reason why he who sins unwillingly should be either rebuked or condemned. But it is not so. For when through his prophet the Lord says: I will judge each one according to his ways, house of Israel, whoever has succumbed to passion was not overcome by pressing foreknowledge, but was seduced by flattering sin. Those still denying the effort of human labor oppose this testimony: unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quam angusta porta et arta uia, quae ducit ad uitam, et pauci sunt, qui inueniunt eam","severity":"info","text":"Faustus alludes to Matthew 7:13-14, which contrasts the narrow gate to the broad way, a key proof-text for his argument that virtue requires arduous effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"perierunt propter iniquitates suas uelut somnium exsurgentis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Psalm 72:20 (LXX) or similar prophetic language, used by Faustus to illustrate that sinners perish due to their own iniquities, not divine compulsion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"discedite a me omnes, qui operamini iniquitatem","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of Psalm 118:115 (LXX) or a similar verse, reinforcing the theme of human responsibility for sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non custodierunt testamentum dei et in lege eius noluerunt ambulare","severity":"info","text":"This likely refers to Psalm 77:36-37 (LXX) or a similar passage, emphasizing willful disobedience rather than divine predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"peccantem coram omnibus argue","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 5:20, which Faustus uses to argue that rebuke presupposes voluntary sin, not compulsion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"unumquemque secundum uias suas iudicabo domus Israel","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Ezekiel 18:30 or a similar prophetic judgment formula, supporting Faustus's claim that God judges each according to their deeds, not foreknowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'nisi dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant, qui aedificant eam' is a biblical allusion (possibly to Psalm 126:1 LXX or a similar text) but the exact source is uncertain; Faustus uses it to represent the opposing view that human effort is futile without divine grace."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"qui hoc inperite obiciunt et totum homini denegandum credunt, primum secundum sonum litterae intellectum suum expedire non possunt. numquid enim dominus per se tantum uelut solitaria procuratione salutem humani generis administrat? non utique. sed cum corpus per membra dispositum capitis exsequatur imperium, aedificat (dominus) domum suam per ecclesiae praesules atque pastores, per eos, qui dicunt: dei enim adiutores sumus. qui enim curam suscipit saluandi hominis, adiutor est redemptoris.\n\nAedificat ergo domum hanc dominus per sanctos suos et sancti per dominum suum. aedificatur' ecclesia per eum, qui dixit: ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui. numquid aliter aedificatam cognoscis ecclesiam, quam per labores et officia sacerdotum, per ministeria et exempla sanctorum, per apostolorum uirtutes et martyrum mortes ? sed inter haec cum usque ad omnium malorum tolerantiam uitaeque iacturam laborare debeat famulus, ad dominum tamen semper est referendus laboris effectus. qui uero uel initium operis sibi praesumit adrogare uel finem, ad illum merito dicitur: nisi dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant, qui aedificant eam. ceterum sicut ab homine indefessae seruitutis expectanda deuotio est, ita operis consummati domino est deputanda perfectio, cuius dona ille solus non habuit, qui seruare neglexit.","english":"Those who ignorantly raise this objection and believe that everything must be denied to man cannot, first of all, expedite their understanding according to the literal sound. For does the Lord administer the salvation of the human race solely by Himself, as if by a solitary management? Not at all. But when the body, arranged through its members, carries out the command of the head, the Lord builds His house through the prelates and pastors of the Church, through those who say: \"For we are helpers of God.\" For whoever undertakes the care of saving a man is a helper of the Redeemer.\n\nTherefore, the Lord builds this house through His saints, and the saints through their Lord. The Church is built through the one who said: \"As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation.\" Do you recognize that the Church is built otherwise than through the labors and offices of priests, through the ministries and examples of saints, through the virtues of apostles and the deaths of martyrs? But among these, although the servant must labor up to the endurance of all evils and the sacrifice of life, yet the effect of the labor is always to be referred to the Lord. But whoever presumes to arrogate to himself either the beginning of the work or its end, to him it is rightly said: \"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.\" Moreover, just as the devotion of unceasing service is to be expected from man, so the perfection of the completed work is to be assigned to the Lord, whose gifts that one alone did not have who neglected to preserve them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dei enim adiutores sumus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'dei enim adiutores sumus' echoes 1 Corinthians 3:9, where Paul calls himself and his coworkers 'adiutores Dei' (Vulgate). Faustus uses it to ground clerical cooperation in salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui","severity":"info","text":"The image of the wise architect laying a foundation recalls 1 Corinthians 3:10, where Paul says 'ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui' (Vulgate). Faustus applies it to Christ as the Church's founder.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nisi dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant, qui aedificant eam","severity":"info","text":"This proverb-like saying is not a direct biblical quotation but echoes Psalm 127:1 (Vulgate) and the patristic tradition that human effort without divine foundation is futile.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"aedificat ergo domum hanc dominus per sanctos suos","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of the Church as a house built by Christ through saints and clergy is a common patristic trope, found in Augustine and Leo the Great, emphasizing cooperative agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"adiutor est redemptoris","severity":"info","text":"The term 'adiutor' (helper) is central to Faustus's semi-Pelagian argument: human ministers assist Christ, but the effect of labor is always referred to the Lord, preserving divine primacy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ceterum sicut ab homine indefessae seruitutis expectanda deuotio est","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the passage with a balanced antithesis: human devotion is expected, but perfection is assigned to the Lord, reinforcing Faustus's via media between Pelagianism and predestinarianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'secundum sonum litterae' could mean either 'according to the literal sense' or 'according to the sound of the letter' (i.e., a superficial reading). The translation takes it as 'literal sound,' but the ambiguity is deliberate in Faustus's rhetoric."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"nam et ille seruus se accepisse cognouit, qui commissum sibi talentum negotio salutis duplicare contempsit, sed terrae potius otio languente mandauit. sed et Saul gratiam dei a Samuele unctus accepit et munificentiam specialem regalemque potentiam sub conditione hac, ne a praeceptis dei declinaret, obtinuit. et qui lucos et fana cum pythonibus suis magistro sacerdote subuerterat, defuncto eodem cum magistro fidem perdidit et ad pythonissae postmodum responsa fallentia conuolauit, qui se ad deum pertinere potuisse idolorum subuersione monstrauerat.\n\nXI. CONTRA EORUM SENSUM, QVI DICUNT, QVOD UAS IN CONTUMELIAM NON POSSIT ADBURGERE, UT SIT UAS IN HONOREM.\n\nAiunt uas contumeliae in uas honoris transire non posse eo, quod dixerit apostolus: an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud uas in honorem, aliud uero in contumeliam? hoc loco praecedentes causas, quibus uel in honorem uel in contumeliam homo transeat, conclusa elocutione suppressit. nam cum homo per gratiam esse coeperit uas honoris, inuigilandum est, ut acceptus honor diuina cooperatione seruetur, ne adquisitus homo postmodum in uas contumeliae culpa exsistente uertatur. quod autem dicunt ab ineunte aetate praefinitum in melius non posse mutari deteriorem hominis statum, hoc illic futurum creditur post uitae huius excessum, ubi iam nec emendatio nec mutatio erit, apud inferos.","english":"For that servant also acknowledged that he had received what was entrusted to him, who scorned to double the talent committed to him in the business of salvation, but rather entrusted it to the earth, languishing in idle leisure. And Saul also received the grace of God, anointed by Samuel, and obtained special munificence and royal power under this condition, that he not deviate from the precepts of God. And he who had overthrown groves and shrines with their pythons, under the master priest, upon the death of that same master, lost the faith and afterwards flew to the deceitful responses of the pythoness, he who had shown by the overthrow of idols that he could belong to God.\n\nXI. AGAINST THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT A VESSEL OF DISHONOR CANNOT BECOME A VESSEL OF HONOR.\n\nThey say that a vessel of dishonor cannot pass into a vessel of honor, because the Apostle said: \"Does not the potter have power from the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, another for dishonor?\" In this passage, he suppressed the preceding causes by which a man passes either into honor or into dishonor, by a condensed expression. For when a man has begun to be a vessel of honor through grace, he must be vigilant that the honor received is preserved by divine cooperation, lest the acquired man afterwards be turned into a vessel of dishonor by an existing fault. But what they say—that a state of man predetermined from an early age for the better cannot be changed for the worse—that is believed to happen there after the departure from this life, where there will be neither correction nor change, in the underworld.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"talentum","severity":"info","text":"The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) is echoed in the servant who fails to double the talent, a common patristic figure for spiritual responsibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Saul","severity":"info","text":"Saul's anointing by Samuel and subsequent fall (1 Samuel 10-15, 28) is a standard exemplum of conditional grace and divine favor lost through disobedience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"pythonibus","severity":"info","text":"Pythonibus refers to prophetic spirits or oracular demons, often associated with the Pythia at Delphi; here it denotes pagan divination practices overthrown by the master priest.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"an non habet potestatem figulus luti","severity":"info","text":"The potter metaphor is from Romans 9:21, where Paul argues that God can make vessels of honor or dishonor from the same clay, a key text in the grace controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XI. CONTRA EORUM SENSUM","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading introduces a new argument against opponents who deny the possibility of moral transformation, structuring the treatise as a series of refutations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"apud inferos","severity":"info","text":"Faustus limits the permanence of predestined states to the afterlife, a position that later influenced semi-Pelagian debates and was critiqued by Augustine's followers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'master priest' (magistro sacerdote) who overthrew groves and shrines is unclear; it may refer to a specific biblical or hagiographic figure, possibly Elijah or a desert father, but the text does not specify.","The phrase 'conclusa elocutione suppressit' is ambiguous: it could mean that the Apostle suppressed the preceding causes by a condensed expression, or that the opponents' interpretation suppresses them."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"ceterum usque in finem et ad iustitiam transire pessimi et periculum possunt timere perfecti, sicut legimus in primo Regum: qui glorificant me, glorificabo eos, qui autem contemnunt me, erunt ignobiles. quare iste honoratur et ille despicitur ? propter hoc utique, quia et ille deum glorificare potuit, qui intulit contumeliam, et iste contemnere, qui detulit gloriam, quia placere domino deo suo et potuit nolle, qui uoluit, et potuit uelle, qui noluit. nec putes hic naturae esse distantiam. ipse est, qui uult, ipse, qui non uult.\n\nQuisque ergo renatus in Christo, nisi prius fuerit uas malitiae per culpam propriam, uas offensae et irae esse non poterit. et e contrario, ut fiat uas misericordiae, prius futurus est uas oboedientiae, ut praecedentibus causis iusti iudicis sententia subsequatur. ostendamus uas contumeliae in uas honoris adiutorio dei et studio suo posse transire: si, inquit, dixero impio: morte morieris, et egerit paenitentiam a peccato suo feceritque iudicium et iustitiam, uita uiuet et non morietur. quid est impius nisi uas contumeliae? ecce per remedium paenitentiae subito honoratur candore gratiae et induitur decore iustitiae, ut peccatorum faece detersa confidenter possit dicere cum propheta: asperges me hyssopo et mundabor, lauabis me et super niuem dealbabor.","english":"Moreover, even the worst can pass over to righteousness, and the perfect can fear danger, right up to the end, as we read in 1 Kings: \"Those who glorify me, I will glorify; but those who despise me, they will be ignoble.\" Why is this one honored and that one despised? For this reason, certainly: because both the one who offered insult could have glorified God, and the one who offered glory could have despised Him, because it was possible for him who was willing to be unwilling to please his Lord God, and possible for him who was unwilling to be willing. Nor should you think here that there is a difference of nature. It is the same one who wills, the same one who does not will.\n\nTherefore, each person reborn in Christ cannot be a vessel of malice, offense, and wrath unless he first becomes so through his own fault. And conversely, to become a vessel of mercy, he must first be a vessel of obedience, so that the sentence of the just judge follows upon preceding causes. Let us show that a vessel of insult can pass into a vessel of honor with the help of God and his own effort: \"If,\" it says, \"I say to the impious man, 'You will die by death,' and he performs penance for his sin and executes judgment and justice, he will live by life and will not die.\" What is the impious man but a vessel of insult? Behold, through the remedy of penance he is suddenly honored with the brightness of grace and clothed with the beauty of righteousness, so that, with the dregs of sin wiped away, he can confidently say with the prophet: \"You will sprinkle me with hyssop and I will be cleansed; you will wash me and I will be made whiter than snow.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in primo Regum","severity":"info","text":"The quotation 'Those who glorify me, I will glorify; but those who despise me, they will be ignoble' is not found in the canonical 1 Kings (1 Samuel) but appears to be a loose paraphrase or a variant from a Latin Old Latin or Vulgate tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"vas contumeliae","severity":"info","text":"'Vessel of insult' (vas contumeliae) is a key metaphor in Faustus's argument, contrasting with 'vessel of honor' (vas honoris) and 'vessel of mercy' (vas misericordiae), drawing on Pauline language of vessels (cf. Rom 9:22-23) but adapted to moral transformation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"asperges me hyssopo et mundabor","severity":"info","text":"The closing quotation 'You will sprinkle me with hyssop and I will be cleansed; you will wash me and I will be made whiter than snow' echoes Psalm 51:7 (LXX) but is not a direct Vulgate citation; it reflects liturgical or Old Latin usage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"paenitentia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's emphasis on penance (paenitentia) as a remedy that transforms the impious into a vessel of honor reflects semi-Pelagian views on human effort cooperating with grace, a key point in the controversy with Augustine's predestinarianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ceterum usque in finem","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a transitional phrase ('Moreover, even the worst can pass over to righteousness') that links to the preceding discussion of Saul and the servant, extending the argument that moral change is possible until the end.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ipse est, qui uult, ipse, qui non uult","severity":"caution","text":"The assertion that 'it is the same one who wills, the same one who does not will' may be read as denying a difference of nature, but Faustus's semi-Pelagian context means he does not fully exclude grace; the phrase is rhetorically pointed against predestinarian determinism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the 1 Kings quotation is uncertain; it may be a paraphrase or from a non-canonical text.","The phrase 'vas contumeliae' could be interpreted as a vessel that receives insult or one that causes insult; the context favors the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"audi apostolum, quomodo dealbari posse pronuntiat maculas conscientiae, ut de uase iniquitatis uas sanctificationis appareat: in domo, inquit, magna non solum sunt uasa aurea et argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia, (alia) quidem in honorem, alia uero in contumeliam. adtolle cor liberum ab inmutabili necessitate, humana conditio, et agnosce circa salutem hominis domini tui ineffabilem bonitatem. cum dixisset: alia quidem in honorem, alia uero in contumeliam, manum spei fidelibus aperuit ac dilatauit ita dicens: quod si quis se ex his expurgauerit, erit uas in honorem sanctificatum.\n\nUas ergo cordis utriusque rei capax est et, quod in se ante permisit infundi, facile potest prioris propositi mutatione uacuari, ut ipsum atque idem uas in se et apud se effusa iniquitate permaneat. itaque uas ad substantiam hominis, quod uero in uase conditur, ad genus ac diuersitatem pertinet uoluntatis. et alio loco ostendit dominus perditum restitui posse, cum dicit: non sum missus nisi ad oues, quae perierunt domus Israel, et iterum: epulari et gaudere oportet, quia hic filius meus mortuus fuerat et reuixit, perierat et inuentus est. non ergo in natura eius fuerat facta perditio, sed qui recedendi contemptu mortuus fuerat, reuixit desiderio reuertendi.","english":"Listen to the apostle, how he declares that the stains of conscience can be whitened, so that from a vessel of iniquity a vessel of sanctification may appear: \"In a great house,\" he says, \"there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen ones, some indeed for honor, others for dishonor.\" Lift up your heart, free from immutable necessity, O human condition, and recognize the ineffable goodness of your Lord concerning the salvation of man. When he had said: \"Some indeed for honor, others for dishonor,\" he opened and widened the hand of hope to the faithful, saying thus: \"But if anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel sanctified for honor.\"\n\nTherefore, the vessel of the heart is capable of either state, and what it previously allowed to be poured into itself, it can easily be emptied by a change of its former purpose, so that the same vessel itself remains in itself and with itself, with the iniquity poured out. Thus the vessel pertains to the substance of man, but what is stored in the vessel pertains to the kind and diversity of the will. And in another place the Lord shows that the lost can be restored, when he says: \"I was sent only to the sheep that perished of the house of Israel,\" and again: \"It is fitting to feast and rejoice, because this son of mine was dead and has come back to life, was lost and has been found.\" Therefore, the ruin had not been made in his nature, but he who was dead through the contempt of withdrawing, came back to life through the desire of returning.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in domo, inquit, magna non solum sunt uasa aurea et argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts a Pauline metaphor (cf. Rom 9:21-22) of vessels in a great house, but the exact wording is not a direct biblical quotation; it may be a paraphrase or from a lost source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non sum missus nisi ad oues, quae perierunt domus Israel","severity":"info","text":"This saying is not found in the canonical Bible; it may be a variant of Jesus’ mission to the lost sheep (cf. Matt 15:24, Luke 15:4-6) or from an apocryphal tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"epulari et gaudere oportet, quia hic filius meus mortuus fuerat et reuixit","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:24, 32) but is not a direct quotation; Faustus may be paraphrasing or using a liturgical version.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'uas' (vessel) as a metaphor for the human soul or heart, capable of receiving either iniquity or sanctification, a common patristic image (cf. 1 Pet 2:3).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"dealbari","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'dealbari' (to be whitened) suggests ritual purification or baptismal cleansing, a key theme in Faustus’s anti-Pelagian argument for the possibility of moral renewal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"manum spei fidelibus aperuit ac dilatauit","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a rhetorical shift: Faustus interprets the apostle’s words as opening hope, then immediately qualifies with the condition of self-cleansing, reinforcing his semi-Pelagian stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the 'great house' metaphor is unclear; it may be a Pauline allusion or a non-canonical saying.","The two sayings about lost sheep and the dead son are not verbatim biblical quotations; their exact origin is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"nam sicut sui criminis est, quod longe pii parentis refugit oculos, ita suae est deuotionis, quod per insitum sibi bonum deliberans et adsurgens ad paternos recurrit amplexus. sed gratia, quae pulsauerat peregrinantem, ipsa suscepit reuertentem. recedat hinc originalis definitio uel fatalis. ecce mortuus uiuificatur et perditus inuenitur, sicut et mulier euangelica, quae amissam in domo dragmam, id est rem uel cuiuscumque muneris uel salutis lucerna inquirit accensa et ad gratiae oleum adponit studium suum et cum dei adiutorio iungit se requirentis intentio ac sic, quod intus perdiderat, intus inuenit.\n\nSi quando ergo homo ex bono malus uel ex malo bonus effici arbitrio mentis adnititur, uoluntas, quae libera est, a deo data corrigitur, non uis praedestinationis operatur. et quotienscumque in sacris paginis legeris: in quacumque die conuersus ingemueris, tunc saluus eris, et iterum: nolo mortem impii, sed ut reuertatur impius a uia sua et uiuat. conuertimini a uiis uestris pessimis, et iterum: impietas impii non nocebit eum, in quacumque die conuersus fuerit ab iniustitia sua, et illud: auferte uetus fermentum, ut sitis noua conspersio, et quotiens homo ad meliora deterioribus repudiatis gratia iuuante conuertitur, totiens de uase contumeliae uas honoris efficitur.","english":"For just as it is his own crime that he flees the eyes of his pious parent far away, so it is his own devotion that, deliberating through the good implanted in him and rising up, he runs back to his father’s embraces. But the grace which had struck him as a wanderer herself received him as he returned. Let the definition of original or fatal [predestination] depart from here. Behold, the dead man is brought to life and the lost man is found, just as the woman in the Gospel, who seeks the drachma lost in the house—that is, a thing of either some value or of salvation—by a lamp lit and applies her effort to the oil of grace, and with God’s help the intention of the seeker joins itself, and thus what she had lost within, she finds within.\n\nIf, therefore, a man ever becomes good from bad or bad from good by the effort of the mind’s choice, the will, which is free, given by God, is corrected; it is not the force of predestination that works. And as often as you read in the sacred pages: “On whatever day you groan, having been converted, then you will be safe,” and again: “I do not desire the death of the impious, but that the impious man turn back from his way and live. Turn back from your worst ways,” and again: “The impiety of the impious will not harm him, on whatever day he has been converted from his injustice,” and that: “Remove the old leaven, so that you may be a new batch,” and as often as a man, with the help of grace, is converted to better things, having rejected worse ones, so often from a vessel of dishonor a vessel of honor is made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"originalis definitio uel fatalis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus rejects both 'original definition' (perhaps a reference to the Pelagian or predestinarian claim of a fixed original state) and 'fatal' (fatalis, i.e., fate or astral determinism). This aligns with his anti-predestinarian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"mulier euangelica ... dragmam","severity":"info","text":"The parable of the lost drachma (Luke 15:8-9) is adapted: the woman seeks with a lamp and oil of grace. Faustus uses it to illustrate grace aiding human effort in recovery of lost good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quotienscumque in sacris paginis legeris","severity":"info","text":"Faustus strings together several scriptural exhortations to conversion: 'On whatever day you groan...' (cf. Ezekiel 18:21-23), 'I do not desire the death of the impious...' (cf. Ezekiel 33:11), 'Turn back from your worst ways' (cf. Isaiah 1:16-17), and 'Remove the old leaven' (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia ... pulsauerat peregrinantem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus depicts grace as both initiating the return ('struck the wanderer') and receiving the penitent. This reflects his semi-Pelagian view that grace cooperates with free will, not overriding it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Si quando ergo ...","severity":"info","text":"This passage transitions from the parable to a doctrinal conclusion: human will is corrected by God, not forced by predestination. The repeated 'quotienscumque' structures the argument as a series of scriptural proofs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"originalis definitio uel fatalis","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus's rejection of 'original definition' may target the predestinarian views of Lucidus or others condemned at the Council of Arles (c. 473). The phrase is ambiguous but likely refers to a fixed, non-negotiable predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'originalis definitio uel fatalis' is ambiguous: it may refer to a specific predestinarian doctrine (perhaps of Lucidus) or to astrological fate. The reading taken is that it targets both original sin as a fixed state and fatalistic determinism.","The scriptural citations are paraphrased and not verbatim; their exact sources are uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"ut uero de bonis mali efficiantur, hoc facilius in se recipit humana fragilitas, ut de uase honoris in uas contumeliae transeat, sicut legimus inAbacuc: et escae eius electae, de quibus etiam dicitur: aurum ut paleas reputabit, Hieremias quoque: quomodo obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus? sicut et apostolus dicit: tollam ergo membra Christi et faciam membra meretricis?\n\nItaque manifesta sententia est de Christi corpore posse hominem in partem diaboli per culpam propriam commutari, sicut et alio loco absolutissime docet de optimo pessimum fieri et templum dei posse uiolari ita dicendo: uos estis templum dei et spiritus dei habitat in uobis. si quis autem templum dei uiolauerit, disperdet illum deus. ecce iam templum dei esse dinoscitur, iam a sancto spiritu possidetur, et per incuriam uiolari atque corrumpi et ab indigno hospite occupari posse memoratur, sicut et propheta increpat animam dei gratia sponte euacuatam: ego plantaui uineam electam, omnem ueram. quomodo conuersa es in amaritudinem uitis alienae? ecce uineam a deo nobili radice plantatam, studio cultoris electam, proprio ostendit crimine deprauatam. et ideo de ea in Esaiae cantico loquitur: expectaui, ut faceret uuam, fecit autem spinas. expectatio increpantis agricolae ostendit hanc uineam dare fructus potuisse iustitiae.","english":"But that good men become evil—this human frailty more readily admits, so that it passes from a vessel of honor to a vessel of disgrace, as we read in Habakkuk: “and his choice foods,” concerning which it is also said: “he will count gold as chaff.” Jeremiah likewise: “How has the gold become tarnished, the best color changed?” And as the apostle says: “Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot?”\n\nThus the clear statement is that a man can be changed from the body of Christ into the party of the devil through his own fault, just as elsewhere he teaches most explicitly that the best becomes the worst and that the temple of God can be violated, saying: “You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone violates the temple of God, God will destroy him.” Behold, it is already recognized as the temple of God, already possessed by the Holy Spirit, and yet it is recorded that it can be violated and corrupted through negligence and occupied by an unworthy guest, just as the prophet rebukes the soul voluntarily emptied of God’s grace: “I planted a choice vine, every true one. How have you turned into the bitterness of a foreign vine?” Behold, a vine planted by God from a noble root, chosen by the cultivator’s care, shown to be corrupted by its own fault. And therefore concerning it, in the Song of Isaiah, it is said: “I waited for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns.” The expectation of the rebuking farmer shows that this vine could have produced fruits of justice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in Abacuc: et escae eius electae","severity":"info","text":"The citation from Habakkuk is not found in the canonical Vulgate; it may derive from a lost Old Latin version or a liturgical paraphrase. The phrase 'aurum ut paleas reputabit' is also unattested in standard Habakkuk.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieremias quoque: quomodo obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus?","severity":"info","text":"This Jeremiah quotation is not verbatim in the Vulgate; it echoes Lamentations 4:1 ('quomodo obscuratum est aurum') but with added phrasing. Faustus may be citing from memory or a variant Old Latin text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"tollam ergo membra Christi et faciam membra meretricis?","severity":"info","text":"This Pauline-sounding phrase is not found in the canonical epistles. It may be a rhetorical invention by Faustus or a citation from a now-lost patristic source, possibly misattributed to the apostle.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uos estis templum dei et spiritus dei habitat in uobis. si quis autem templum dei uiolauerit, disperdet illum deus.","severity":"info","text":"This is a composite citation: the first part echoes 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, but the warning about violation is not Pauline. Faustus likely adapts scripture to his argument, a common practice in late antique polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ego plantaui uineam electam, omnem ueram. quomodo conuersa es in amaritudinem uitis alienae?","severity":"info","text":"This prophetic rebuke is not a direct biblical quotation; it may be a conflation of Isaiah 5:2-4 and Jeremiah 2:21. Faustus uses it to illustrate the soul's voluntary fall from grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"expectaui, ut faceret uuam, fecit autem spinas.","severity":"info","text":"This line is not found in the canonical Song of Isaiah (i.e., the Book of Isaiah). It may be a loose paraphrase of Isaiah 5:2-4 or a citation from a non-canonical prophetic text known to Faustus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of several scriptural citations is uncertain; they may be from Old Latin versions, apocryphal texts, or Faustus's own composition. The reading taken treats them as loose or adapted quotations."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"et cum stantem cadere testetur posse, cum dicit: et qui se existimat stare, uideat ne cadat, et e contrario ad iacentem loquitur: numquid qui cadit non resurgit? potens est enim deus statuere illum, aperte ostendit statum hominis in diuersa non pro constitutione dei, sed pro arbitrii libertate posse uersari. sed et Esaias euidenter adfirmat deprauata corrigi et dilui posse maculata, cum ad peccatores loquitur dicens: lauamini, mundi estote, auferte malum cogitationum uestrarum ab oculis meis.\n\nXII. ITEM UELLE ET NOLLE SICUT AD MALAM ITA ETIAM AD BONAM PARTEM HOMINIS ARBITRIO PATET FUISSE COMMISSUM.\n\nInter haec sollicite nobis apud haereticos requirendum est, utrum homo bonum non possit an nolit. insita homini bonae semina uoluntatis euidenter adsignat ita dicens: si uolueris mandata (seruare), conseruabunt te, et: noli deficere a disciplina domini, et: noli abstinere bene facere egenti, et: noli fabricari in amicum tuum mala, et: nolite fieri, sicut equus et mulus, in quibus non est intellectus, et: noli repudiare consilia matris tuae, et: noli intendere fallaci mulieri, et: noluit intellegere, ut bene ageret, et: noluerunt accipere disciplinam. cui nolle obicitur, uelle in promptu fuisse euidenter ostenditur. et plura similia sunt in eloquiis ueteris testamenti, quae omnia ipsam specialiter constringunt et conuincunt uoluntatem.","english":"and when it testifies that one who stands can fall, saying: \"and he who thinks he stands, let him see that he does not fall,\" and on the contrary speaks to one who lies prostrate: \"does not he who fall rise again? for God is able to set him up,\" it openly shows that the state of man can be turned in different directions not by the constitution of God, but by the freedom of the will. But Isaiah also clearly affirms that what is corrupted can be corrected and what is stained can be washed away, when he speaks to sinners saying: \"wash yourselves, be clean, remove the evil of your thoughts from my eyes.\"\n\nXII. LIKEWISE, WILLING AND NOT WILLING, JUST AS TOWARD THE EVIL PART, SO ALSO TOWARD THE GOOD PART, IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO MAN'S FREE CHOICE.\n\nAmong these things we must carefully inquire, in the face of heretics, whether man cannot do good or will not. The implanted seeds of good will in man are clearly indicated when it says: \"if you will to keep the commandments, they will keep you,\" and: \"do not fail from the discipline of the Lord,\" and: \"do not refrain from doing good to the needy,\" and: \"do not fabricate evil against your friend,\" and: \"do not become like the horse and the mule, in which there is no understanding,\" and: \"do not reject the counsels of your mother,\" and: \"do not heed a deceitful woman,\" and: \"he did not will to understand, so as to do good,\" and: \"they did not will to accept discipline.\" To whom not willing is objected, it is clearly shown that willing was at hand. And there are many similar things in the utterances of the Old Testament, all of which specifically constrain and convict the will itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XII. ITEM UELLE ET NOLLE SICUT AD MALAM ITA ETIAM AD BONAM PARTEM HOMINIS ARBITRIO PATET FUISSE COMMISSUM.","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading introduces a new argument: that willing and not-willing are equally entrusted to human free choice, mirroring the structure of earlier chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et qui se existimat stare, uideat ne cadat","severity":"info","text":"Likely a paraphrase of a biblical warning about presumption; not a direct Vulgate citation but echoes Proverbs or Pauline admonitions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"lauamini, mundi estote, auferte malum cogitationum uestrarum ab oculis meis","severity":"info","text":"A loose citation of Isaiah 1:16 (LXX/Vulgate), urging purification; Faustus adapts the wording to stress moral agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"si uolueris mandata (seruare), conseruabunt te","severity":"info","text":"An apparent allusion to Proverbs or Wisdom literature, emphasizing conditional obedience; not a direct Vulgate verse.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"arbitrium","severity":"info","text":"Here rendered 'free choice' (not 'will' alone), consistent with Faustus's semi-Pelagian vocabulary: arbitrium denotes the power of decision between good and evil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haereticos","severity":"info","text":"Faustus targets those (likely strict predestinarians) who deny human capacity for good; the passage refutes their position by citing Old Testament exhortations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical sources for several proof-texts (e.g., 'si uolueris mandata seruare') are uncertain; they may be paraphrases or lost variants.","The phrase 'noli deficere a disciplina domini' is not a standard Vulgate citation; its origin is unclear."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"in libris etiam nouis euangelicis et apostolicis, quid aliud nisi libertas uoluntatis ostenditur, ubi dicitur: nolite thesaurizare thesauros in terra, et: nolite eos timere, qui occidunt corpus. sobrii estote, iusti et nolite peccare, ad Timotheum: noli neglegere gratiam, quae in te est. nec bonum tuum uelut ex necessitate sit, sed ex uoluntate. seruos etiam ipsos monet, ut dominis suis ex anima seruiant cum bona uoluntate, et alio loco: nolite in personarum acceptione habere fidem domini nostri Iesu Christi. nolite detrahere in alterutrum, et: nolite errare. deus non inridetur. quae enim seminauerit homo, haec et metet, et: nolite diligere mundum neque ea, quae in mundo sunt.\n\nUidemus ergo et in bonam et in contrariam partem posse humanae mentis transire consensum. et ideo alio loco dicit: bonum, inquit, facientes non deficiamus, tempore enim suo metemus non deficientes. operemur ergo bonum ad omnes, maxime autem ad domesticos fidei. nolite, inquit, diligere mundum: nisi ei bonum ad meliora contulisset affectum, mali ei non interdiceret appetitum, et ideo in sinistram crimine suo trahitur, qui a domino suo uocatur ad dexteram. et propterea iterum dicit: noli uinci a malo, sed uince in bono malum. aperte mali necessitate non premitur, cui uictoria de boni electione promittitur.","english":"In the new evangelical and apostolic books as well, what else is shown but the freedom of the will, where it is said: do not store up treasures on earth, and: do not fear those who kill the body. Be sober, be just, and do not sin, to Timothy: do not neglect the grace that is in you. Nor let your good be as if from necessity, but from will. It even urges servants themselves to serve their masters from the soul with good will, and in another place: do not have faith in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ with an acceptance of persons. Do not slander one another, and: do not err. God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he also reaps, and: do not love the world nor those things that are in the world.\n\nWe see, therefore, that the consent of the human mind can pass both to the good side and to the contrary side. And so in another place it says: let us not, he says, grow weary in doing good, for in due time we shall reap without growing weary. Let us therefore do good to all, but especially to those of the household of faith. Do not, he says, love the world: unless it had turned his affection to better things, it would not forbid him the appetite for evil, and therefore he is drawn to the left by his own fault, who is called by his lord to the right. And for that reason it says again: do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good. Clearly, he is not pressed by the necessity of evil, to whom victory is promised from the choice of good.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nolite thesaurizare thesauros in terra","severity":"info","text":"An echo of Matthew 6:19, though not a direct quotation; the phrase 'nolite thesaurizare' recalls the Sermon on the Mount's warning against earthly treasures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nolite eos timere, qui occidunt corpus","severity":"info","text":"Likely a paraphrase of Matthew 10:28 or a similar exhortation not to fear bodily death, common in martyrdom contexts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ad Timotheum: noli neglegere gratiam, quae in te est","severity":"info","text":"A reference to 1 Timothy 4:14 or a similar Pauline admonition; the phrase 'gratiam quae in te est' is not verbatim in the Vulgate but captures the sense of neglecting one's gifts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quae enim seminauerit homo, haec et metet","severity":"info","text":"A clear allusion to 2 Corinthians 9:6 (or Galatians 6:7-8), the principle of reaping what one sows, used to underscore moral responsibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libertas uoluntatis","severity":"info","text":"A key phrase in Faustus's argument for free will against predestinarian views; 'libertas uoluntatis' is synonymous with 'liberum arbitrium' in this context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"nolite in personarum acceptione habere fidem domini nostri Iesu Christi","severity":"info","text":"A warning against favoritism in faith, possibly reflecting early Christian concerns about partiality in community or doctrinal disputes; not a direct scriptural quote.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural sources for several exhortations (e.g., 'nolite detrahere in alterutrum') are not identified; they may be composite or paraphrased from multiple New Testament passages.","The phrase 'noli neglegere gratiam, quae in te est' is not a direct Vulgate citation; it may be a loose paraphrase of 1 Timothy 4:14 or a similar text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"non enim in deuia lex originis trahit, quem auctor in biuio conlocauit, ac sic, cui uoluntas indita est, ut uincere malum possit, si forte aduersario suo cessit, animus ei pugnandi defuit, euentus non defuit obtinendi. legimus ad Hebraeos: uoluntarie enim peccantibus nobis post acceptam notitiam ueritatis iam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia. secundum haec, si libertatem arbitrii non habemus, quomodo cum uoluntate peccamus? qua causa reus sit (si) requiras, quia post acceptam notitiam ueritatis ad spiritum declinauit erroris. post acceptam, inquit, notitiam: intellege eum accepisse gratiam et per neglegentiam perdidisse, et iterum: inritam faciens legem Moysi sine ulla miseratione duobus uel tribus testibus moritur, quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia, qui filium dei conculcauerit et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est, et spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecerit?","english":"For the law of origin does not drag into a byway the one whom the author placed at a crossroads, and thus, to whom will is given, so that he can overcome evil, if by chance he yielded to his adversary, the spirit to fight was lacking to him, the outcome of obtaining was not lacking. We read in the Epistle to the Hebrews: \"For we, sinning voluntarily after having received knowledge of the truth, a sacrifice for sins is no longer left for us.\" According to this, if we do not have freedom of the will, how do we sin with will? For what reason is he guilty, if you ask, because after having received knowledge of the truth he turned aside to the spirit of error. \"After having received,\" it says, \"knowledge\": understand that he received grace and through negligence lost it, and again: \"One who makes the law of Moses void dies without any mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses; how much more do you think those who have trampled upon the Son of God and considered the blood of the covenant polluted, in which he was sanctified, and have done insult to the spirit of grace, deserve worse punishments?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non enim in deuia lex originis trahit, quem auctor in biuio conlocauit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses the image of a crossroads (biuium) to assert that original sin does not compel one down a wrong path, emphasizing free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntarie enim peccantibus nobis post acceptam notitiam ueritatis iam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:26, which in the Vulgate reads: 'peccantibus autem et post acceptam notitiam veritatis non relinquitur hostia pro peccatis.'","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntarie","severity":"info","text":"The adverb 'voluntarie' (voluntarily) is key to Faustus’s argument: sin requires will, thus free will must exist.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"inritam faciens legem Moysi sine ulla miseratione duobus uel tribus testibus moritur","severity":"info","text":"This refers to a legal penalty in the Old Testament (cf. Numbers 35:30-31, though not exact), used by Faustus to contrast with the greater sin of rejecting Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum haec, si libertatem arbitrii non habemus, quomodo cum uoluntate peccamus?","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question forms the logical pivot of the passage, linking the scriptural citation to Faustus’s defense of free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"post acceptam, inquit, notitiam: intellege eum accepisse gratiam et per neglegentiam perdidisse","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus interprets 'knowledge' as grace received and lost through negligence, a reading that may overextend the original sense of Hebrews.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'inritam faciens legem Moysi' may refer to a specific Old Testament law, but the exact source is unclear.","The identity of 'spiritui gratiae' (spirit of grace) is ambiguous; it could refer to the Holy Spirit or a personification of grace."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Cur sub duobus aut tribus testibus accusatur et quasi proprii criminis reus moritur, si iam ineuitabili ad peccandum naturae lege deprimitur ? sed ideo absque dubio meretur poenam, quia potuit et noluit custodire iustitiam. qua uero causa tanto bono exutus sit si requiras, quia, inquit, spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecit. agnosce hoc loco, quia gratia non tam negata homini defuit, sed hominem prius ab eodem derelicta et contempta deseruit benignitas dantis. cum quodam dolore increpat contumeliam respuentis ac sic, cum ad deuia uoluntarius declinauit, non periit derelictus, qui se ingerenti misericordiae subtraxit ingratus, similis effectus illis, de quibus psalmista pronuntiat: et benedixit eos, et multiplicati sunt nimis, et in sequenti causas amissae benedictionis obtendit: et seduxerunt, inquit, eos uana ipsorum et seduxerunt eos in inuio et non in uia. hic praeuaricator mandati ideo apparuit reus, quia ad malum magis seductus est quam coactus. similiter et ad Galatas transgressionis noxam ad hominis retorquet offensam ita dicens: sed tunc quidem ignorantes deum his, qui natura non sunt dii, seruiebatis. secundum haec natura deus est Christus, cui seruire praecipimur. sequitur: nunc autem, cum cognoueritis deum, immo cogniti sitis a deo, quomodo conuertimini ad infirma et egena elementa, quibus denuo seruire uultis? non dixit: boni esse non potestis, sed mali esse uultis.","english":"Why is a person accused before two or three witnesses and dies as if guilty of his own crime, if he is already oppressed by an unavoidable law of nature that compels him to sin? But without doubt he deserves punishment precisely because he was able to keep justice and chose not to. If you ask for what reason he was stripped of such a great good, the answer is: because he offered insult to the spirit of grace. Recognize here that grace was not so much absent because it was denied to man, but rather that the kindness of the giver abandoned man after it had first been abandoned and scorned by him. With a certain grief it rebukes the insult of the one who spurns it, and thus, when he voluntarily turned aside into byways, the one who was abandoned did not perish, for he, ungrateful, withdrew himself from the mercy that was offering itself, becoming like those of whom the psalmist declares: \"And he blessed them, and they multiplied exceedingly,\" and in what follows he sets forth the causes of the lost blessing: \"And their own vanities led them astray,\" he says, \"and led them astray into a pathless place and not on the way.\" Here the transgressor of the commandment appeared guilty because he was more seduced into evil than compelled. Similarly, in the letter to the Galatians, he turns the blame for transgression back to human offense, saying: \"But then, indeed, ignorant of God, you served those who are not gods by nature.\" According to this, Christ is God by nature, whom we are commanded to serve. It follows: \"But now, since you have come to know God—or rather, have been known by God—how is it that you turn back to weak and needy elements, which you wish to serve again?\" He did not say: \"You cannot be good,\" but \"You wish to be evil.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et benedixit eos, et multiplicati sunt nimis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus loosely adapts Psalm 106:30 (LXX) or a similar Old Latin version; the Vulgate reads 'et benedixit eis, et multiplicati sunt nimis'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sed tunc quidem ignorantes deum his, qui natura non sunt dii, seruiebatis","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Galatians 4:8, where Paul contrasts service to false gods with knowledge of the true God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"gratia","severity":"info","text":"Here 'gratia' denotes divine grace as a gift of the Holy Spirit, not merely favor; Faustus insists it is abandoned by human ingratitude, not withdrawn by God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecit","severity":"info","text":"Echoes the semi-Pelagian controversy: Faustus argues that human will first scorns grace, causing its withdrawal, countering the view that grace is always present but ineffective.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a legal analogy (two or three witnesses) to scriptural proof (Psalm, Galatians), reinforcing Faustus’s claim that sin arises from voluntary choice, not natural compulsion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et benedixit eos, et multiplicati sunt nimis","severity":"caution","text":"The psalm citation is not verbatim from the Vulgate; Faustus may use an Old Latin version or adapt freely. The exact source is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'spiritui gratiae' could be read as 'the Spirit of grace' (i.e., the Holy Spirit) or 'the spirit of grace' as a personification; Faustus likely intends the former.","The psalm citation's exact reference is unclear; it may conflate Psalm 106 (LXX) with other passages."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"nisi in bono potuissent stare correcti, non arguerentur ad deteriora prolapsi. ad quos iterum dicit: filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in uobis.\n\nEcce istos, qui fide geniti facti fuerant abortiui, asserit adhuc posse ad Christi imaginem reformari et, dum perditos adhuc filios uocat, praeuaricationem sine desperatione condemnat docens et reparari perdita et auferri posse conlata. nam cum alio loco haereticus apostoli sententiam praedestinationem dei uel praefinitionem interpretetur esse, cum legitur: miserebor, cui uoluero, et misericordiam praestabo, cuius miserebor, interrogandus est, utrum quod uult deus ordinatum an inordinatum, iustum an iniustum sit? cum id, quod necesse est, iustum esse responderit, dicendum est: puta hic uerba esse iustitiae, quia uoluntas diuina iustitia est. et ita haec elocutio intellegenda est miserebor, cui uoluero, id est: cui iustum esse (consilium) cognouero, cuius promptam fidem uidero, quem praeceptis meis oboedire perspexero, quem meam facere probauero uoluntatem.","english":"unless they could have stood corrected in good, they would not be accused of having lapsed into worse. To them he says again: \"My little children, whom I bring forth again, until Christ is formed in you.\"\n\nBehold, he asserts that these, who were born of faith but had become miscarriages, can still be reformed into the image of Christ, and while he calls the lost still his children, he condemns transgression without despair, teaching that both lost things can be restored and that which has been conferred can be taken away. For when elsewhere the heretic interprets the apostle's statement as the predestination or predefinition of God, where it is read: \"I will have mercy on whom I wish, and I will grant mercy to whom I will have mercy,\" he must be asked whether what God wills is ordered or disordered, just or unjust? Since he will answer that what is necessary is just, it must be said: consider here that these are words of justice, because the divine will is justice. And thus this expression is to be understood: \"I will have mercy on whom I wish,\" that is, on whom I have known to be just (in counsel), on whom I have seen ready faith, on whom I have perceived to obey my precepts, on whom I have proven to do my will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in uobis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Galatians 4:19, where Paul speaks of suffering birth pains again until Christ is formed in the faithful. The citation supports the possibility of reform after sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"abortiui","severity":"info","text":"The term 'abortiui' (miscarriages) metaphorically describes those who, though born in faith, failed to reach spiritual maturity. It echoes patristic usage for incomplete or failed spiritual development.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"miserebor, cui uoluero, et misericordiam praestabo, cuius miserebor","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Exodus 33:19 (LXX), where God declares mercy to whom He wills. Faustus counters a predestinarian reading by insisting the divine will is inherently just.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haereticus","severity":"info","text":"The 'heretic' likely refers to proponents of a strict predestination, possibly followers of Lucidus or others condemned at the Council of Arles (c. 473). Faustus opposes their deterministic interpretation of grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"interrogandus est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus employs a dialectical question-and-answer format, typical of late antique theological disputation, to force the heretic to concede that God's will is necessarily just and ordered.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"consilium","severity":"caution","text":"The word 'consilium' (counsel) is an editorial insertion in the English draft; the Latin text has 'iustum esse' without an explicit noun. The sense is clear but the exact reading is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'heretic' is not specified; it may refer to a specific contemporary opponent or a general predestinarian position.","The phrase 'iustum esse' in the final sentence lacks an explicit noun; 'consilium' is supplied in the translation but is not in the Latin."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"et misericordiam, inquit, praestabo, cuius miserebor: quod ita intellegendum est, qui conlatam a deo misericordiam subdita et sollicita mente seruauerit, ampliorem misericordiam consequetur, sicut alio loco dicit: qui enim habet, dabitur illi et superabundabit, id est, qui acceptum dei donum cum uigilantia et cordis timore custodit, magis ac magis gratiae ipsius capiet augmentum, ut ei profectus ipse pariat incrementa profectuum, sicut alio loco dicit: et sanctus adhuc sanctificetur.\n\nQuod autem et illud ad praefinitionem dei putant esse referendum, quod apostolus dicit: ergo cuius uult miseretur et quem uult indurat: dicis itaque mihi, quid adhuc queritur? uoluntati enim eius quis resistit? manifeste hic sub interrogantis uel obicientis persona contrarium sensum apostolus intromittit, quem ex aduerso propositum sequenti increpatione castigat dicens: o homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas deo? an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud uas in honorem, aliud uero in contumeliam? hic infidelis curiositatem arguentis auctoritate conpescit. et cum dicit: an non habet potestatem, hic calumnianti solam dei obicit potestatem contemnens eiusdem rationem, qui uniuersos humanos actus diuinae ordinationi indocte et infideliter adscribebat. an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud uas in honorem, aliud uero in contumeliam?","english":"And I will show mercy, he says, to whom I show mercy: which is to be understood thus: whoever has preserved the mercy conferred by God with a submissive and anxious mind will obtain greater mercy, as he says elsewhere: for he who has, it will be given to him and it will abound, that is, whoever guards the gift of God with vigilance and fear of heart will receive an increase of that grace more and more, so that progress itself produces for him increments of progress, as he says elsewhere: and let the holy one be sanctified still further.\n\nBut as for their thinking that what the apostle says is to be referred to God's predetermination: therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills: you say to me, then, what further complaint is there? for who resists his will? Here the apostle clearly introduces the contrary sense under the persona of one questioning or objecting, which contrary proposition he then chastises with the following rebuke, saying: O man, who are you to answer back to God? Does not the potter have the power to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for honor, another for dishonor? Here he restrains the curiosity of the unbeliever with the authority of the one who argues. And when he says: does he not have the power, he sets before the slanderer only God's power, disregarding the reason of the same, who was ignorantly and unfaithfully ascribing all human acts to divine ordinance. Does not the potter have the power to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for honor, another for dishonor?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et misericordiam, inquit, praestabo, cuius miserebor","severity":"info","text":"Faustus paraphrases Exodus 33:19 (LXX: 'I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy'), a common proof-text in the semi-Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"qui enim habet, dabitur illi et superabundabit","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical citation but a proverbial expression; Faustus may be adapting Matthew 25:29 or a patristic maxim on grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et sanctus adhuc sanctificetur","severity":"info","text":"Likely a reference to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (Vulgate: 'et sanctus adhuc sanctificetur'), used to support progressive sanctification through grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ergo cuius uult miseretur et quem uult indurat","severity":"info","text":"Faustus cites a version of Romans 9:18 (Vulgate: 'cuius vult miseretur et quem vult indurat'), a key text in the grace–free will debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"figulus luti","severity":"info","text":"The potter metaphor echoes Jeremiah 18:1–6 and patristic usage (e.g., Augustine, De civitate Dei 22.1) to illustrate divine sovereignty over human destiny.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"sub interrogantis uel obicientis persona","severity":"info","text":"Faustus identifies a rhetorical device (diatribe) in the Pauline passage, where the apostle adopts an opponent's voice to refute it, a common exegetical move.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'qui enim habet, dabitur illi et superabundabit' is not a direct biblical quotation; its source is uncertain.","The reference 'et sanctus adhuc sanctificetur' may be a conflation of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 with a liturgical or patristic formula."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"inter haec dum dicit ex eadem massa, quicumque duas generis humani massas esse arbitrabaris, unam sacra ex lectione cognosce. duas autem facit prauitas studiorum et diuersitas uoluntatum. ita pro earum qualitatibus, non pro inpulsu dei unusquisque aut contumeliae uas aut honoris efficitur.\n\nXIII. UBI SIBI GRATIA DEI ET UOLUNTAS HUMANA TESTIMONIORUM ASSERTIONE SOCIANTUR.\n\nSi bene intendas animum, aperte copioseque cognosces, quomodo per sanctarum paginas scripturarum nunc asseratur gratiae uirtus, nunc humanae uoluntatis adsensus. fragilitatem arbitrii demonstramus, cum ad deum dicimus: pone, domine, custodiam ori meo et ostium circumstantiae labiis meis. item iubet sermo diuinus, ut aliquid uigor possit arbitrii, dum ad hominem dicit: cohibe linguam tuam a malo et labia tua ne loquantur dolum. arbitrium commendat sapientiae sermo, cum dicit: omni custodia serua cor tuum. sed apostolus sine diuino adiutorio hoc fieri non posse manifestat, cum dicit: dominus custodiat corda uestra et intellegentias uestras in Christo Iesu. asserit propheta uoluntatis propriae facultatem de semet ipso dicens: inclinaui cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas. sed nihil de solis eius uiribus intellegit praesumendum, cum proclamat ad deum: inclina, inquit, cor meum in testimonia tua et non in auaritiam.","english":"While he says these things from the same mass, whoever you were who thought there were two masses of the human race, recognize one from sacred reading. But two are made by the depravity of pursuits and the diversity of wills. Thus, according to their qualities, not by the impulse of God, each one becomes either a vessel of contumely or of honor.\n\nXIII. WHERE THE GRACE OF GOD AND HUMAN WILL ARE UNITED BY THE ASSERTION OF TESTIMONIES.\n\nIf you apply your mind well, you will clearly and abundantly recognize how, throughout the pages of the holy scriptures, the power of grace is now asserted, now the assent of the human will. We demonstrate the weakness of free will when we say to God: \"Set, Lord, a guard at my mouth and a door of circumspection at my lips.\" Likewise, the divine word commands that the will may have some vigor, when it says to man: \"Restrain your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.\" The word of wisdom commends free will when it says: \"Guard your heart with every watchfulness.\" But the apostle shows that this cannot happen without divine help when he says: \"May the Lord guard your hearts and your understandings in Christ Jesus.\" The prophet asserts the capacity of his own will concerning himself, saying: \"I have inclined my heart to perform your justifications.\" But he understands that nothing is to be presumed from his own strength alone, when he proclaims to God: \"Incline,\" he says, \"my heart to your testimonies and not to avarice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XIII. UBI SIBI GRATIA DEI ET UOLUNTAS HUMANA TESTIMONIORUM ASSERTIONE SOCIANTUR.","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading marks a structural turn: Faustus now pairs scriptural testimonies to show that grace and human will are jointly asserted, not opposed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"pone, domine, custodiam ori meo et ostium circumstantiae labiis meis","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Psalm 140:4 (LXX) or a similar prayer; the exact wording is not a direct Vulgate citation but a free adaptation common in patristic florilegia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cohibe linguam tuam a malo et labia tua ne loquantur dolum","severity":"info","text":"Likely an echo of Psalm 33:14 (LXX) or Proverbs; the phrasing is loose, typical of Faustus’s method of weaving biblical language into argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"omni custodia serua cor tuum","severity":"info","text":"Probably a reminiscence of Proverbs 4:23 or similar wisdom texts; Faustus attributes it to 'sapientiae sermo' (the word of wisdom).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dominus custodiat corda uestra et intellegentias uestras in Christo Iesu","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct Pauline quotation but a prayerful adaptation; Faustus cites 'apostolus' loosely, reflecting his rhetorical rather than exact citation practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"inclina, inquit, cor meum in testimonia tua et non in auaritiam","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Psalm 85:2 (LXX) or similar; Faustus uses it to show the prophet’s reliance on divine help despite asserting will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical sources for several citations are unclear; Faustus adapts rather than quotes verbatim.","The phrase 'ex eadem massa' in the opening may echo Augustine's 'massa peccati' but is used here to reject two masses."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"propter liberum arbitrium indicitur nobis: rectos cursus fac pedibus tuis et uias tuas dirige. sed nos ad gratiam confugientes pro infirmitatis conscientia supplicamus: dirige in conspectu tuo uiam meam, et: perfice gressus meos in semitis tuis. '\n\nImperat nobis, qui propriae uoluntatis generali dispensatione ius tribuit: inluminate uobis lumen scientiae. pro eo uero, quod totum ad auctorem gratiae referendum est, legimus: qui docet hominem scientiam, uel: dominus inluminat caecos, et iterum: inlumina oculos meos, ne umquam obdormiant in mortem, et: beatus homo, quem tu erudieris, domine, et de lege tua docueris eum. apostolus arbitrii praedicator libertatem eius ita incitat dicens: custodite animas uestras, sed misericordiam dei protestatur ita commemorans: dominus custodiat introitum tuum et exitum tuum. per haec itaque, quibus modo arbitrii libertas adseritur, modo caelestis largitas demonstratur, nunc homo de concessis uiribus admonetur, ne de sola gratia speret otiosus, nunc de gratia sperare praecipitur, ne de solo sit labore securus. sed dicis: si praedestinatio non est, cur in paruulis alii baptizantur, alii sine baptismi sanctificatione rapiuntur? serpentinae fraudis est ad tenebrosas cauernas relicta luce transfugere, cum per omnia uolumina sacrae litterae euidenter liberum loquantur arbitrium.","english":"On account of free will it is commanded to us: make straight courses with your feet and direct your ways. But we, taking refuge in grace out of awareness of our weakness, beseech: direct my way in your sight, and: perfect my steps in your paths.\n\nHe commands us, who by the general dispensation of his own will grants authority: kindle for yourselves the light of knowledge. But for that which is wholly to be referred to the author of grace, we read: who teaches man knowledge, or: the Lord enlightens the blind, and again: enlighten my eyes, that they may never fall asleep in death, and: blessed is the man whom you, Lord, have instructed and whom you have taught from your law. The apostle, a preacher of the will, urges its freedom thus, saying: guard your souls, but he attests to the mercy of God thus, recalling: may the Lord guard your coming in and your going out. Through these things, therefore, by which on the one hand the freedom of the will is asserted, on the other heavenly bounty is shown, now man is admonished concerning the granted powers, lest he hope idly from grace alone, now he is commanded to hope from grace, lest he be secure from effort alone. But you say: if there is no predestination, why are some infants baptized, while others are snatched away without the sanctification of baptism? It is the craft of a serpent to flee from the light into dark caverns, when through all the volumes of sacred scripture the free will clearly speaks.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"rectos cursus fac pedibus tuis et uias tuas dirige","severity":"info","text":"Likely echoes Psalm 119:5 (Vulgate: 'utinam dirigantur viae meae') or similar wisdom exhortations; the exact phrase is not a direct Vulgate citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dirige in conspectu tuo uiam meam","severity":"info","text":"Probably alludes to Psalm 5:9 (Vulgate: 'dirige me in veritate tua') or a liturgical prayer; not a verbatim biblical quote.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"perfice gressus meos in semitis tuis","severity":"info","text":"Likely echoes Psalm 119:35 (Vulgate: 'viam fac mihi') or similar; the phrasing is Faustus's own adaptation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"inluminate uobis lumen scientiae","severity":"info","text":"May reflect Proverbs 24:14 (Vulgate: 'scientiam lumen est') or a sapiential command; not a direct citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dominus inluminat caecos","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to Psalm 146:8 (Vulgate: 'illuminatio mea') or Isaiah 42:16; Faustus adapts the theme of divine enlightenment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"custodite animas uestras","severity":"info","text":"Likely echoes 1 Peter 4:7 (Vulgate: 'custodite animas vestras') or a Pauline exhortation; the apostle is Paul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'rectos cursus fac pedibus tuis' is not a standard Vulgate verse; Faustus may be paraphrasing or combining Psalm phrases. The identity of 'the apostle' in 'custodite animas uestras' is assumed to be Paul, but the exact source is unclear."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"quid rationis est, ut interrogare uelis occulta, cum sollicitudini tuae plenissime uideas respondere manifesta? quid utilitatis est certa omittere et incerta consulere, de quibus nihil inuenis catholica lectione conscriptum? non intellegis, quod in ueritatis iniuriam perscrutaris, quidquid ueritas scire te noluit? materiam de liberi arbitrii ratione proponis et ad discutiendum infantiae statum pernicioso errore delaberis, in quo nullum penitus uestigium liberi arbitrii, nullum apparere potest propriae uoluntatis indicium.\n\nXIIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT EOS, QVI POST BAPTISMUM PEREUNT, IN BAPTISMUM PENITUS NON CREDIDISSE.\n\nHoc loco respondendum est, in quo auctore hoc legis, de quo doctore hoc asserere praesumis. et cum in baptismo aboleri peccatum originale non deneges et firmum esse baptisma conprobetur, ubi indiuisa trinitas inuocatur, da causas, quibus baptizatus adhuc intra debitum originale consistat. et ipsi, inquis, in Adam pereunt, quia in baptismum non crediderunt. nonne tu paulo ante dicebas ad capessenda dei dona studium hominis non requiri? ecce tu ipse manifestissime profiteris sine accipientis deuotione irritam esse munificentiam largientis. tu, inquam, ipse confirmas sine merito fidei, id est sine cooperatione uoluntatis humanae gratiam nil prodesse et, quomodo dicis, totum deus sibi de statu hominis reseruauit et nihil homini dedit.","english":"What reason is there for you to wish to inquire into hidden matters, when you see that manifest things respond most fully to your concern? What use is it to set aside certainties and consult uncertainties, about which you find nothing written in Catholic reading? Do you not understand that you scrutinize, to the injury of truth, whatever truth has not wished you to know? You propose a subject concerning the rationale of free will and, in order to discuss the state of infancy, you slide into a pernicious error, in which no trace of free will, no indication of its own will can appear at all.\n\nXIV. AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THAT THOSE WHO PERISH AFTER BAPTISM DID NOT BELIEVE IN BAPTISM AT ALL.\n\nAt this point it must be answered: from what author do you read this, from what teacher do you presume to assert it? And since you do not deny that original sin is abolished in baptism and that baptism is confirmed as firm, where the undivided Trinity is invoked, give the reasons why a baptized person still remains within the debt of original sin. \"And they themselves,\" you say, \"perish in Adam, because they did not believe in baptism.\" Did you not say a little earlier that the effort of man is not required for receiving the gifts of God? Behold, you yourself most manifestly profess that without the devotion of the recipient the generosity of the giver is void. You, I say, yourself confirm that without the merit of faith, that is, without the cooperation of the human will, grace is of no avail, and, as you say, God reserved everything for himself concerning the state of man and gave nothing to man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XIIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT EOS, QVI POST BAPTISMUM PEREUNT, IN BAPTISMUM PENITUS NON CREDIDISSE.","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading marks a new argumentative section, responding to an opponent's claim that post-baptismal death implies lack of belief in baptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"infantiae statum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'infantiae statum' (state of infancy) is central to the debate on free will, as Faustus argues that infants lack any trace of free will or voluntary action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"indiuisa trinitas inuocatur","severity":"info","text":"The invocation of the undivided Trinity in baptism reflects the standard Latin baptismal formula, rooted in Matthew 28:19, though not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"baptismum aboleri peccatum originale","severity":"info","text":"Faustus affirms the abolition of original sin in baptism, a standard Augustinian position, but his opponent's view that the baptized remain in original sin reflects a rigorist or Donatist-leaning perspective.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sine cooperatione uoluntatis humanae gratiam nil prodesse","severity":"info","text":"Faustus here attributes to his opponent a semi-Pelagian-sounding claim that grace requires human cooperation, a position later condemned at the Council of Orange (529).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et, quomodo dicis, totum deus sibi de statu hominis reseruauit et nihil homini dedit","severity":"caution","text":"The final clause may be a paraphrase or exaggeration of the opponent's view; the Latin 'et, quomodo dicis' suggests indirect speech, so the exact wording of the opponent is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in baptismum penitus non credidisse' could mean either 'did not believe in baptism at all' or 'did not believe at the time of baptism'; the translation takes the former.","The identity of the opponent (possibly a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian) is not specified by Faustus."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Ecce etiam secundum sententiam tuam nec ipsum sibi regenerationis potest constare mysterium, nisi homo iuxta benedictionis donum adhibuerit credulitatis affectum. cui negas conatum, quid ab illo requiris adsensum? cum autem propheta dicat: exibunt aquae uiuae de Hierusalem, in quibus uitalis undae sacramenta designat, quomodo fieri potest, ut innouatus homo deletam ueteris hominis cautionem secum retineat? quomodo fieri potest, ut cum debito Adae in Christo absolutus resurgat? quomodo fieri potest, ut de sacri fontis inriguo cum adoptiuo dei adhuc mortem uita parturiat, cum dicat apostolus: quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis? quem utique nullus induere potest, nisi indumenta primae natiuitatis exuerit. cui autem ad baptismum sponte uenienti baptismum non profuisse poteris edocere, cum etiam haeretico in trinitatis nomine regenerato tantum per se uirtus ipsa mysterii conferat, ut, si postmodum ad Christi fidem transeat, baptismatis iteratione non egeat, sed ita operante gratia ablutus iudicetur, ut tantum benedictione chrismatis induatur? hunc uero persuasionis tuae' reprobum sensum catholica detestatur ecclesia. ideo, inquis, genitali quamlibet unda perfusi munus baptismi non accipiunt, quia ad baptismum infideliter ueniunt. non ita est. aduerte, quia hoc ipsum ad baptismum uenire et salutem desiderare iam fidei est.","english":"Behold, even according to your own opinion, the mystery of regeneration itself cannot stand firm unless a person has brought the affection of belief to the gift of blessing. You deny him effort; why do you require assent from him? When, moreover, the prophet says: \"Living waters will go forth from Jerusalem,\" by which he designates the sacraments of the life-giving wave, how can it happen that the renewed man retains with himself the canceled bond of the old man? How can it happen that he rises absolved with the debt of Adam in Christ? How can it happen that from the irrigation of the sacred font the life of the adopted of God still gives birth to death, when the apostle says: \"Whoever among you have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ\"? Whom, indeed, no one can put on unless he has put off the garments of the first birth. But as for one who comes voluntarily to baptism, will you be able to teach that baptism did not benefit him, when even to a heretic regenerated in the name of the Trinity the very power of the mystery confers so much by itself that, if he later passes over to the faith of Christ, he does not need a repetition of baptism, but is judged to have been washed by grace working in such a way that he is only clothed with the blessing of chrism? The catholic church detests this reprobate sense of your persuasion. \"Therefore,\" you say, \"those who are drenched in any kind of birth-water do not receive the gift of baptism, because they come to baptism unfaithfully.\" It is not so. Pay attention, because this very thing—coming to baptism and desiring salvation—is already of faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"exibunt aquae uiuae de Hierusalem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes a prophetic source, possibly Zechariah 14:8 or a related tradition, though the exact verse is not cited in the passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Galatians 3:27, where Paul speaks of putting on Christ through baptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cautionem","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cautionem' (bond, debt) refers to the legal or financial obligation inherited from Adam, a key concept in Faustus's anti-Pelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"chrismatis","severity":"info","text":"Chrism is the consecrated oil used in baptismal anointing, here indicating the completion of initiation for heretics who convert, without rebaptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"reprohum sensum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus condemns the view that baptism's efficacy depends on the recipient's faith, a position later associated with semi-Pelagianism, which the Council of Orange (529) rejected.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hunc uero persuasionis tuae' reprobum sensum","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a rhetorical climax, directly opposing the interlocutor's view and invoking ecclesiastical authority to reject it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural source for 'exibunt aquae uiuae de Hierusalem' is not identified; it may be a loose citation or a conflation.","The phrase 'genitali quamlibet unda' (any kind of birth-water) is ambiguous, possibly referring to any water used in baptism regardless of its source or blessing."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 4:10","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “living water”, which matches John 4:10. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"quicumque, inquis, post baptismum pereunt, in Adam pereunt, quia in baptismo non crediderunt. rectius diceres ideo eos perisse post baptismum, quia ad gratiae donum iungere noluerunt laboris officium, quia eos consuetudinis neglegentia cordisque desidia a uigilantia operis et a sollicitae seruitutis reuocauit industria.\n\nQuod si culpa incredulitatis causa est perditionis, quid de paruulis sentiemus, quibus in parentum deuotione et in lactantis infantiae simplicitate integra fidei peruigilia deputantur, qui absque ullo infidelitatis periculo inmaculata regenerationis munera consequuntur et multi eorum processu aetatis in mortis praecipitia demerguntur? quae id ratio agit, nisi quia expugnari se ignauia resoluente ...................\n\nXV. DE RUINA ANGELI ET HABERE SANCTOS ANGELOS SIMILITUDINEM DEI CONTRA QVORUNDAM PERSUASIONEM.\n\n........... et causam, cur fracti uiderentur, exposuit: propter incredulitatem, inquit, fracti sunt, non utique propter praescientiam. non specialem esse circa credentes dei munificentiam docet, quando et eos, quos incredulitatis arguit, credere potuisse demonstrat.","english":"Whoever, you say, perishes after baptism perishes in Adam, because they did not believe in baptism. You would more rightly say that they perished after baptism because they were unwilling to join the duty of labor to the gift of grace, because negligence of habit and sloth of heart recalled them from vigilance of work and from the industry of attentive service.\n\nBut if the fault of unbelief is the cause of perdition, what shall we think of little children, to whom, in the devotion of their parents and in the simplicity of nursing infancy, the full watchfulness of faith is assigned, who without any danger of unfaithfulness receive the immaculate gifts of regeneration, and many of them, as age advances, are plunged into the precipices of death? What reason drives this, except that they are overcome by enervating idleness?\n\nCHAPTER XV. ON THE RUIN OF THE ANGEL AND ON HOLY ANGELS HAVING THE LIKENESS OF GOD, AGAINST THE PERSUASION OF CERTAIN PERSONS.\n\n... and he set forth the reason why they seemed broken: because of unbelief, he says, they were broken, not, of course, because of foreknowledge. He does not teach that God's munificence toward believers is special, when he shows that even those whom he accuses of unbelief could have believed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"laboris officium","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts 'laboris officium' (duty of labor) with 'gratiae donum' (gift of grace), emphasizing human effort as a necessary complement to divine grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"incredulitas","severity":"info","text":"'Incredulitas' (unbelief) is a key term in Faustus's argument, used to critique the view that lack of faith alone causes perdition, especially in the case of infants.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"propter incredulitatem, inquit, fracti sunt","severity":"info","text":"This phrase likely echoes a biblical passage (possibly referring to the fall of the angels), though the exact source is not identified in the text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"De Ruina Angeli","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading 'On the Ruin of the Angel' reflects Faustus's engagement with contemporary debates about the fall of Lucifer and the nature of angelic sin, possibly against semi-Pelagian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XV. DE RUINA ANGELI","severity":"info","text":"The chapter number XV marks a new section in the treatise, shifting from the discussion of infant baptism to angelic fall and divine foreknowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"expugnari se ignauia resoluente","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is fragmentary after 'ignauia resoluente', indicated by ellipsis in the edition, making the full argument about infants unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical reference for 'propter incredulitatem, inquit, fracti sunt' is not specified; it may refer to a patristic source or a lost biblical allusion.","The ellipsis in the Latin after 'ignauia resoluente' leaves the sentence incomplete, obscuring Faustus's full conclusion about infant perdition."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"quo genere etiam infideles copiam fidei accepisse manifestat et, dum de naturalibus fractos dicit, praesumentes salutifera castigatione conpressit: si, inquit, naturalibus ramis non pepercit, ne forte nec tibi parcat, et subdidit: et illi, inquit, si non permanserint in incredulitate, inserentur. potens est deus iterum inserere illos. magnanimitatem itaque hic et humilitatem cordis adloquitur, humilitatem, ut et qui insertus est frangi timeat, magnanimitatem, ut spem remunerationis et qui fractus est non deponat. sic ouem perditam pastor sedulus inquisiuit et inuentam subiectis ad ouile humeris reportauit. quomodo sequentem relinqueret, qui sequitur etiam relinquentem?\n\nXVI. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT CHRISTUM NON PRO OMNIBUS MORTUUM.\n\nDominum nostrum Iesum Christum aiunt humanam carnem non pro omnium salute sumpsisse nec pro omnibus mortuum esse. hoc omnimodis catholica detestatur ecclesia. nam si ita esset, quomodo apostolus diceret: sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur? hic dici non potest pro parte totum.","english":"In this manner he also shows that the unbelievers have received the abundance of faith, and, by saying that they are broken off from the natural branches, he has restrained the presumptuous with a salutary rebuke: if, he says, he did not spare the natural branches, lest perhaps he might not spare you either, and he added: and those, he says, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in. God is able to graft them in again. Therefore he here addresses magnanimity and humility of heart—humility, so that even one who has been grafted in may fear being broken off, and magnanimity, so that one who has been broken off may not lay aside hope of reward. Thus the diligent shepherd sought the lost sheep and, when found, carried it back to the fold on his subjected shoulders. How would he abandon the one who follows, when he follows even the one who abandons him?\n\nXVI. AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT CHRIST DID NOT DIE FOR ALL.\n\nThey say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not take on human flesh for the salvation of all, nor did he die for all. The Catholic Church utterly detests this. For if it were so, how would the Apostle say: just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be brought to life? Here it cannot be said that the part stands for the whole.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"naturalibus ramis","severity":"info","text":"The image of natural branches broken off and grafted in alludes to Paul's metaphor of the wild and cultivated olive in Romans 11:17-24, where the restoration of Israel is discussed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur","severity":"info","text":"This paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 15:22 (Vulgate: 'sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur') is central to Faustus's argument for universal redemption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ouem perditam pastor sedulus inquisiuit","severity":"info","text":"The image of the good shepherd seeking the lost sheep echoes the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7) and is a common patristic symbol for Christ's salvific care.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XVI. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT CHRISTUM NON PRO OMNIBUS MORTUUM","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks a new chapter in Faustus's treatise, directly refuting the claim that Christ's death was not universal, a key point in the semi-Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc omnimodis catholica detestatur ecclesia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's strong condemnation of the view that Christ did not die for all aligns with the orthodox position later affirmed at the Council of Orange (529), which rejected such exclusivist interpretations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"sic ouem perditam pastor sedulus inquisiuit et inuentam subiectis ad ouile humeris reportauit","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'subiectis ad ouile humeris' is ambiguous: it may mean the shepherd carried the sheep on his shoulders to the fold, or that the sheep was carried with its shoulders subjected. The translation opts for the former, which is more natural.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'subiectis ad ouile humeris' could be read as 'with shoulders subjected to the fold' (i.e., the shepherd's shoulders) or 'with the sheep's shoulders subjected'; the translation takes the shepherd as the subject of the carrying."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"nam sicut pars prima sententiae omnes in Adam mori euidenter ostendit, sine dubio hoc, quod sequitur: in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur, nihilominus ad omnes in Christo uiuificandos non ex parte, sed generaliter pertinere apostolus indicauit, id est etiam impii per uirtutem resurrectionis Christi resuscitandi esse creduntur, licet etiam non iudicandi, sed puniendi resurgant. cum autem apostolus dicat: qui est saluator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium, quod dixit omnium hominum, ad propositum diuinae bonitatis aspexit. quod autem dixit maxime fidelium, illos hoc loco pronuntiauit atque distinxit, qui per fidem, per oboedientiam, per subditam uoluntatem redemptoris munera susceperunt.\n\nPro uniuersis autem uenisse Christum idem apostolus declarat: caritas, inquit, Christi urget nos iudicantes hoc, quoniam, si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt. et pro omnibus mortuus est, ut et qui uiuunt iam non sibi uiuant, sed ei, qui pro ipsis et mortuus est et resurrexit. quia ergo resurrectio generalis ad uirtutem pertinet redemptionis, si redemptio non ad omnes pertinet, nec ad omnes resurrectio pertinebit. et ideo quia sicut omnes resurgemus, licet non omnes inmutabimur, ita dominum redemptorem cum generalis misericordiae beneScio uenisse testamur, etsi illud infidelitas, quia noluit, non recepit.","english":"For just as the first part of the sentence clearly shows that all die in Adam, without doubt what follows—that all will be brought to life in Christ—the apostle indicated that this pertains not partially but generally to all who are to be brought to life in Christ, that is, even the impious are believed to be raised by the power of Christ’s resurrection, although they rise not to be judged but to be punished. But when the apostle says: “who is the savior of all men, especially of the faithful,” what he said, “of all men,” looked to the purpose of divine goodness. But what he said, “especially of the faithful,” in that place he proclaimed and distinguished those who, through faith, through obedience, through a submissive will, received the gifts of the Redeemer.\n\nThat Christ came for all, the same apostle declares: “The charity of Christ,” he says, “urges us, judging this, that if one died for all, then all are dead.” And he died for all, so that those who live no longer live for themselves, but for him who both died and rose for them. Therefore, because the general resurrection pertains to the power of redemption, if redemption does not pertain to all, neither will the resurrection pertain to all. And so, just as we all rise, although not all are changed, so we testify that the Lord Redeemer came with the benefit of general mercy, even if unbelief, because it was unwilling, did not receive it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"pars prima sententiae ... quod sequitur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus structures his argument as a parallel: as the first part of the sentence (Rom 5:12) shows all die in Adam, so the second part shows all are brought to life in Christ. This chiastic logic is typical of his exegetical method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Romans 5:12 (Vulgate: 'sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur'), a key text in the semi-Pelagian controversy over the universality of grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"resuscitandi","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'resuscitandi' (to be raised) is used here of the impious, distinguishing physical resurrection from spiritual transformation. Faustus insists that even the wicked rise by Christ's power, though not to salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"qui est saluator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:4-6 (Vulgate: 'unus est Deus ... salvator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium'). Faustus uses it to argue that Christ's saving work is universal in intent, though only the faithful receive it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"caritas ... urget nos iudicantes hoc","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'caritas Christi urget nos' is not a direct biblical verse but a compressed allusion to 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, where Paul argues that Christ's death for all implies the universal scope of redemption. Faustus adapts it to his own argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"beneScio","severity":"caution","text":"The reading 'beneScio' (with capital S) in the CSEL edition is likely a scribal error or editorial convention for 'beneficio' (benefit). The sense requires 'beneficio' to parallel 'general mercy'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'beneScio' is ambiguous: it may be a corruption of 'beneficio' or a rare adverb; the context favors 'beneficio'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"nam deum quolibet tempore qui quaesiuit inuenit et, qui inuenisse non uisus est, non quaesiuit. quod si, quemadmodum abrupta blasphemat impietas, alii ad mortem praeordinati, alii praedestinati uidentur ad uitam, nullam Christus ueniendi causam, nullam moriendi, quam pietas eius inuenit, habuit necessitatem.\n\nNouum ergo remedium nihil agere potuit, si ante saecula res humanas definitio uetusta praefixit. sed quia fatalis persuasio, quae uim praescientiae cogentis inducit, omnimodis respuenda est, ideo magis et legem (deus) dedit et prophetas mediis temporibus excitauit, quia arbitrium uoluntatis humanae adtenuatum nouerat, non ablatum. quod si ex toto uigor eius perisset, quomodo legeretur: et in lege domini fuit uoluntas eius, et iterum: uoluntarie sacrificabo tibi, domine, et ad Philemonem: ut non ex necessitate, sed uoluntarium esset bonum tuum? et cum dicat in euangelio: caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi uita, dubitare penitus non debemus, quod pro toto mundo se inpenderit, qui plus dedit, quam totus mundus ualebat, sicut et beatus Iohannes euangelista testatur: ipse est enim propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, sed et pro totius mundi.","english":"For at any time whoever has sought God has found him, and whoever has not been seen to have found him has not sought him. But if, as broken blasphemy impiously asserts, some seem to be preordained to death and others predestined to life, then Christ had no reason for coming, no necessity for dying—which his piety discovered—that could have availed anything. Therefore a new remedy could accomplish nothing if an ancient definition had fixed human affairs before the ages. But because the fatalistic persuasion, which introduces the force of compelling foreknowledge, is to be rejected entirely, for that very reason God gave the law and roused up the prophets in the intervening times, because he knew that the will of human choice had been weakened, not taken away. For if its vigor had entirely perished, how would it be read: \"And in the law of the Lord was his will,\" and again: \"I will willingly sacrifice to you, O Lord,\" and to Philemon: \"that your good might be not from necessity but voluntary\"? And when he says in the Gospel: \"It is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,\" we ought not to doubt at all that he gave himself for the whole world, who gave more than the whole world was worth, just as the blessed evangelist John testifies: \"For he is the propitiation for our sins, and also for the whole world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"abrupta blasphemat impietas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus characterizes the opposing view as 'broken blasphemy,' a rhetorical dismissal of the predestinarian position he is attacking.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et in lege domini fuit uoluntas eius","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of Psalm 40:2 (LXX) or a similar Old Testament verse, though the exact source is uncertain; it supports the claim that human will is not entirely lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntarie sacrificabo tibi, domine","severity":"info","text":"Likely a reference to Psalm 54:8 (LXX) or a similar expression of voluntary offering, used to argue for free will in worship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ut non ex necessitate, sed uoluntarium esset bonum tuum","severity":"info","text":"This citation to Philemon (possibly a misattribution or a lost text) emphasizes voluntary goodness, reinforcing Faustus's anti-deterministic argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi uita","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of John 6:51 or a similar Eucharistic passage, asserting Christ's universal sacrifice against predestinarian exclusivity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ipse est enim propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, sed et pro totius mundi","severity":"info","text":"Likely a reference to 1 John 2:2 or a Johannine theme, emphasizing Christ's universal atonement, which Faustus uses to counter predestinarian claims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'et in lege domini fuit uoluntas eius' is not a direct quote from a known biblical verse; it may be a paraphrase or a conflation. The reference to Philemon is unclear; no such verse is extant in the canonical letter to Philemon, possibly a misattribution or a lost source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"Sed dicis: quomodo totum mundum redemit? ecce uidemus homines in peccatis suis uiuere, quomodo putabimus redemptos, quos uidemus permanere captiuos? hoc loco intellectum de proposita similitudine colligamus. uerbi gratia si legatus aliquis uel sacerdos intercessurus pro ciuitate captiua largius pretium deferat et uniuersum captiuitatis populum de manu eius recipiat, qui belli iure retinebat, et omnis omnino relaxetur lex ac necessitas seruitutis, et inter haec, si forte illic aliquos de captiuis uel oblectatio consuetudinis uel male blandus praedo sollicitet, gratuitum beneficium unusquisque uoluntatis suae seruus recuset, numquid minorauit gratiam pretii contemptus ingrati? numquid aliquam beniuolentiae redemptoris intulit deminutionem, qui respuit libertatem? non ita est. quin immo sicut redemptori gratus potest esse, qui rediit, ita de contemptu reus est, qui remansit. uolentes enim redemit uoluntatum remunerator. iustus enim arbiter deus uoluntarium cupit redire, quem non inuitum meminit corruisse. quae cum ita sint, dic mihi, quem a gratia redemptionis exceperit, qui damnationis antiquae chirographum generale deleuit.","english":"But you say: how did he redeem the whole world? Behold, we see men living in their sins; how shall we consider redeemed those whom we see remaining captives? At this point, let us gather understanding from the proposed analogy. For example, if some envoy or priest, about to intercede for a captive city, brings a larger price and receives the entire population of captives from the hand of him who held them by right of war, and the law and necessity of servitude is altogether relaxed, and during this, if perhaps some of the captives are tempted either by the delight of habit or by a flattering seducer, and each one, a slave of his own will, refuses the gratuitous benefit, has the contempt of the ungrateful diminished the price of grace? Has it brought any diminution of the redeemer's benevolence, that one who spurned freedom? It is not so. On the contrary, just as one who returns can be grateful to the redeemer, so one who remains is guilty of contempt. For he redeemed those who were willing, the rewarder of wills. For God, a just judge, desires the willing return of one whom he remembers fell unwillingly. Since this is so, tell me, whom has he excluded from the grace of redemption, who cancelled the general bond of the ancient condemnation?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"redemit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'redemit' (redeemed) in a soteriological sense, arguing that Christ's redemption is universal but requires human will to accept it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam redemptionis","severity":"info","text":"'Gratiam redemptionis' (grace of redemption) is a key term; Faustus insists it is not diminished by individual refusal, emphasizing human free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"chirographum generale","severity":"info","text":"'Chirographum generale' (general bond) alludes to the legal metaphor of original sin as a debt, common in Latin patristic thought (e.g., Augustine).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"similitudine","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of a captive city and a redeeming envoy parallels similar arguments in Augustine's 'De Civitate Dei' and earlier Christian rhetoric on redemption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed dicis","severity":"info","text":"The passage begins with a rhetorical objection ('Sed dicis'), a common dialectical structure in Faustus' treatise to refute predestinarian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam redemptionis","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in later semi-Pelagian controversies, as Faustus' emphasis on human will was seen as opposing Augustinian predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'uoluntatum remunerator' is ambiguous: it could mean 'rewarder of wills' (as translated) or 'rewarder of the willing'; the former emphasizes the act of will, the latter the persons."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"CONTRA HOC, QVOD EUANGELICAM SENTENTIAM INPERITO ET INPROBO SENSU INTERPRETANTUR.\n\nNemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater, qui misit me, adtraxerit eum. quis tam inmemor salutis suae sit, qui adtrahentis misericordiam negare praesumat? sed ille uere impius est, qui eam non omnibus ingeri, non omnibus testatur inpendi. hoc loco adtracti salutem adtrahentis putat esse uiolentiam. apparet illum non nosse nisi catenas obnoxiae seruitutis, qui deuotae nescit uincula caritatis. hic autem sermo diuinus specialiter increpat hominem de propriis sibi uiribus adrogantem et de labore suo impie praesumentem. cum inter haec unus totum labori, alter totum gratiae iudicet deputandum, impletur in utroque Graeca sententia: nimietates, inquit, inaequalitates sunt. similis inprobitas et par esse probatur impietas, si totum soli gratiae uel si totum soli adscribatur labori. quid nos oportet inter ista sentire, nisi ut semper gratiae subiciamus laborem et semper gratiam cum labore sociemus?","english":"Against this, that they interpret the evangelical sentence with an unskilled and dishonest sense.\n\n\"No one,\" he says, \"comes to me, unless the Father, who sent me, has drawn him.\" Who is so forgetful of his own salvation as to presume to deny the mercy of the one who draws? But truly impious is he who does not testify that it is offered to all, that it is bestowed upon all. In this place, he thinks that the salvation of the one drawn is the violence of the one drawing. It is clear that he knows nothing but the chains of abject servitude, who is ignorant of the bonds of devoted love. But this divine word specifically rebukes a man who is arrogant about his own strength and who impiously presumes upon his own labor. Since, in these matters, one attributes everything to labor, the other everything to grace, the Greek saying is fulfilled in both: \"Excesses,\" it says, \"are inequalities.\" Similar dishonesty and equal impiety is proven, if everything is ascribed to grace alone or if everything is ascribed to labor alone. What ought we to think in these matters, except that we should always subject labor to grace and always join grace with labor?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater, qui misit me, adtraxerit eum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts John 6:44, where Christ says no one comes to him unless the Father draws him. The Vulgate reads 'nemo venit ad me nisi qui me traxerit'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"adtracti salutem adtrahentis putat esse uiolentiam","severity":"info","text":"The term 'adtracti' (the drawn one) and 'adtrahentis' (the drawer) frame grace as attraction, not coercion. Faustus counters a charge that divine drawing is violent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Graeca sententia: nimietates, inquit, inaequalitates sunt","severity":"info","text":"The Greek proverb 'excesses are inequalities' (perhaps from Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics) is used to condemn extremes in the grace-versus-labor debate. Faustus cites it as a common saying.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quid nos oportet inter ista sentire, nisi ut semper gratiae subiciamus laborem et semper gratiam cum labore sociemus","severity":"info","text":"This concluding rhetorical question states Faustus's via media: labor is subordinate to grace, but grace is always joined with labor. It resolves the binary opposition of the preceding lines.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"similis inprobitas et par esse probatur impietas, si totum soli gratiae uel si totum soli adscribatur labori","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's balanced position was later condemned as semi-Pelagian at the Council of Orange (529). His rejection of exclusive attribution to grace or labor was seen as undermining Augustinian predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the opponent is not named; Faustus may be targeting a specific semi-Pelagian or Augustinian interlocutor. The Greek saying is unattributed in the text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Sed ante omnia adrogantiam laboris refugiamus nec nobis quicquam de eius meritis uindicemus, ne Pharisaeum imitari mortifera iactantiae praesumptione uideamur. nam cum ille orans indubitanter uerum diceret: ieiuno bis in sabbato, decimas do omnium, quaecumque possideo, euacuauit ueri fidem, quia ueritati miscuit uanitatem. non ergo operatio, sed cordis elatio declinanda est. nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater adtraxerit eum. numquid uelut insensibilis et inepta materies de loco ad locum mouendus est et trahendus? sed adsistenti et uocanti domino famulus manum fidei, qua adtrahatur, extendit et dicit: credo, domine, adiuua incredulitatem meam. et ita se duo ista coniungunt, adtrahentis uirtus et oboedientis affectus, quomodo si aeger aliquis adsurgere conetur et facultas animum non sequatur et propterea sibi porrigi dexteram deprecetur. clamat uoluntas, quia sola per se eleuari nescit infirmitas. ita dominus inuitat uolentem, adtrahit desiderantem, erigit adnitentem. quid est autem adtrahere nisi praedicare, nisi scripturarum consolationibus excitare, increpationibus deterrere, desideranda proponere, intentare metuenda, iudicium comminari, praemium polliceri?","english":"But before all things, let us shun the arrogance of labor and claim nothing for ourselves from its merits, lest we seem to imitate the Pharisee with the deadly presumption of boasting. For when that man, praying, spoke the undoubted truth—\"I fast twice in the sabbath, I give tithes of everything I possess\"—he emptied the faith of truth, because he mixed vanity with truth. Therefore, it is not the operation, but the elation of the heart that must be avoided. \"No one,\" he says, \"comes to me, unless the Father has drawn him.\" Is he, then, to be moved and dragged from place to place like some insensible and inert material? But to the Lord standing by and calling, the servant extends the hand of faith, by which he is drawn, and says: \"I believe, Lord; help my unbelief.\" And so these two are joined together—the power of the one drawing and the affection of the one obeying—just as if a sick man tries to rise, and his strength does not follow his will, and for that reason he begs that a hand be reached out to him. The will cries out, because infirmity alone does not know how to lift itself. Thus the Lord invites the willing, draws the desiring, raises the striving. What, then, is \"to draw\" but to preach, to rouse with the consolations of the Scriptures, to deter with rebukes, to set forth things to be desired, to threaten things to be feared, to threaten judgment, to promise reward?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater adtraxerit eum","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of John 6:44, where Christ says 'nemo venit ad me nisi ego traxero eum' in the Vulgate. Faustus adapts the verb to 'adtraxerit' and adds 'pater' to emphasize the Father's role.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pharisaeum","severity":"info","text":"The Pharisee alludes to a figure in early monastic literature, possibly from Cassian's Conferences, who boasts of ascetic works while lacking humility. Faustus uses him as a warning against pride in labor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"adtrahere","severity":"info","text":"Faustus redefines 'adtrahere' (to draw) as a cooperative act: preaching, exhorting, and offering scriptural consolation, not mechanical force. This counters a predestinarian reading of John 6:44.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"aeger aliquis adsurgere conetur","severity":"info","text":"The image of a sick man rising with help echoes a common patristic trope for grace and free will, found in Augustine (e.g., Enchiridion 31) but used here to stress human effort alongside divine aid.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quid est autem adtrahere nisi","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question catalogues the means of divine attraction (preaching, consolation, rebuke, promise), forming a climax that summarizes Faustus's semi-Pelagian view of grace as persuasive, not coercive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"credo, domine, adiuua incredulitatem meam","severity":"info","text":"This prayer formula, 'I believe, Lord; help my unbelief,' became a locus in later debates on grace and free will, cited by opponents of predestinarianism as a model of cooperative salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'adtrahere' could be read as physical dragging; Faustus explicitly rejects that sense, but the ambiguity is central to his argument against a deterministic interpretation of John 6:44."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Audi dominum non duris nexibus, sed spei manibus adtrahentem et dilectionis brachiis inuitantem, sicut ait propheta: adtraxi eos in uinculis caritatis, et illud: post te in odorem unguentorum tuorum curremus. et ideo dicit: uenite ad me omnes, qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam uos, ne ullus excusare se possit exclusus, qui conuincitur inuitatus. licet enim non omnes oboedientiam exhibituros esse praenosceret, omnibus tamen et uelle et posse donauerat. hoc loco sollicitius requiratur, utrum quisque adtrahi uelit an nolit. si non uult, absolute adtrahentis beniuolentiam non meretur. si autem uult, ecce iam cum deo et hominis consensus cooperatur. nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater adtraxerit eum. quomodo adtrahentem uides, cur dissimulas uidere uenientem? et ideo sicut gratiae est quod adtrahitur, ita oboedientiae probatur esse quod sequitur. haec adtrahentis dei misericordia si dignis datur, aduertis, quia iam et studio humanae utcumque seruitutis inpenditur, si uero indignis, consequens est, ut etiam reprobis non negetur et euidenti miseratione bonitas dei indiscrete et iustis et peccatoribus offeratur.","english":"Hear the Lord, drawing not with hard bonds but with the hands of hope and the arms of love inviting, as the prophet says: \"I drew them with the bonds of charity,\" and that: \"After you we will run in the scent of your ointments.\" And therefore he says: \"Come to me, all who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you,\" so that no one can excuse himself as excluded who is convicted of being invited. For although he foreknew that not all would exhibit obedience, yet he had given to all both the will and the ability. At this point let it be more carefully inquired whether each person wishes to be drawn or not. If he does not wish, he absolutely does not deserve the benevolence of the one drawing. But if he does wish, behold, the consent of man already cooperates with God. \"No one,\" he says, \"comes to me unless the Father has drawn him.\" Why, when you see the one drawing, do you pretend not to see the one coming? And therefore, just as it is of grace that he is drawn, so it is proved to be of obedience that he follows. If this mercy of the drawing God is given to the worthy, you perceive that it is already also bestowed upon human effort, such as it is, of service; but if to the unworthy, it follows that it is not denied even to the reprobate, and by evident compassion the goodness of God is offered indiscriminately to both the just and sinners.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Audi dominum ... sicut ait propheta: adtraxi eos in uinculis caritatis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'adtraxi eos in uinculis caritatis' is not a direct biblical quotation but echoes Hosea 11:4 (LXX) and Pauline language of bonds (e.g., Col 2:23).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"post te in odorem unguentorum tuorum curremus","severity":"info","text":"This phrase alludes to Song of Songs 1:3 (Vulgate: 'Trahe me post te ... curram in odorem unguentorum tuorum'), a common mystical image.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uenite ad me omnes, qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam uos","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct scriptural citation but a paraphrase of Christ's invitation in Matthew 11:28, adapted to Faustus's argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo, inquit, uenit ad me, nisi pater adtraxerit eum","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of John 6:44, a key verse in the grace controversy, often cited by Augustine and his opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haec adtrahentis dei misericordia si dignis datur ... si uero indignis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus here engages the semi-Pelagian debate: whether grace is given only to the worthy (Augustinian) or also to the unworthy (as a universal offer).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc loco sollicitius requiratur, utrum quisque adtrahi uelit an nolit","severity":"info","text":"This marks a rhetorical shift to a dialectical inquiry, typical of Faustus's method in De Gratia, posing a conditional argument about human will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'adtraxi eos in uinculis caritatis' is not a verbatim scriptural quote; its source is uncertain, possibly a conflation of Hosea and Pauline imagery.","The identity of 'propheta' is ambiguous; it may refer to a biblical prophet or an ecclesiastical writer, but the context suggests a scriptural allusion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Sed is, quem perspicis adtrahentem, requirit omnimodis praecepta seruantem, ut per quandam uoluntatis ansulam conprehendi et adtrahi ualeat, qui uocatur. quod si eum putas adtrahere nolentes, caelesti iustitiae iniquitatis pondus inponis. sed si inuenitur adtrahere nolentes, quanto magis conplectitur desiderantes! nam etiam, qui sine labore uidetur adtrahi, laboraturus est, ut inhaereat adtrahenti. quanti enim uenerunt et recesserunt, quia adtracti in gratia perseuerare desideratore uocante noluerunt, sicut in euangelio scriptum est: multi ex discipulis eius audientes abierunt retrorsum et iam cum illo non ambulabant, item: dixit autem Iesus ad duodecim: numquid et uos uultis abire? respondit ei Petrus: domine, ad quem ibimus? uerba uitae aeternae habes et nos credimus et cognouimus, quia tu es Christus filius dei. in utrisque libera fuit uoluntas et in illis, ut ingrata mente discederent, et in istis, ut cum libertate fidei permanerent.","english":"But the one whom you perceive as drawing requires in every way those who keep the precepts, so that he who is called can be grasped and drawn by a kind of handle of the will. If you think he draws the unwilling, you impose the weight of injustice upon heavenly justice. But if he is found to draw the unwilling, how much more does he embrace the desiring! For even he who seems to be drawn without labor will have to labor in order to cling to the one drawing. For how many have come and withdrawn, because, drawn into grace, they did not wish to persevere with the desiring caller, as it is written in the Gospel: \"Many of his disciples, hearing, went back and no longer walked with him.\" Likewise: \"But Jesus said to the twelve: 'Do you also wish to go away?' Peter answered him: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we believe and know that you are Christ, the Son of God.'\" In both cases the will was free—in those who departed with ungrateful mind, and in these who remained with the freedom of faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"per quandam uoluntatis ansulam","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor 'handle of the will' (ansulam uoluntatis) is Faustus's way of asserting that divine drawing requires a human response; the will is the point of contact, not a passive instrument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"multi ex discipulis ... abierunt retrorsum","severity":"info","text":"The first Gospel quotation conflates John 6:66 (disciples who withdrew) with the general narrative; the second is John 6:67–69 (Peter's confession). Faustus uses both to illustrate free will in response to grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"adtrahere","severity":"info","text":"The verb adtrahere ('to draw') echoes John 6:44 ('No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him'), a key text in the grace controversy. Faustus insists that drawing does not coerce.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"in utrisque libera fuit uoluntas","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the argument by contrasting two Gospel groups (the departing disciples and the Twelve) to affirm free will in both rejection and perseverance, framing the passage as a dialectical proof.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Faustus of Riez","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's semi-Pelagian position was later condemned at the Council of Orange (529). His emphasis on free will cooperating with grace was seen as undermining Augustine's doctrine of predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'desideratore uocante' is ambiguous: it could mean 'the desiring caller' (Christ) or 'the caller who is desired'; the translation adopts the former as more natural in context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"XVII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA DEI UIOLENTIA INDURET HOMINEM, NE VENIRE UALEAT AD SALUTEM.\n\nSi ipse, ut blasphemas, obdurat, quomodo ait in psalmo: hodie si uocem eius audieritis, nolite obdurare corda uestra, et iterum: secundum duritiam autem tuam et inpaenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae, item in Hieremia: percussisti eos et non doluerunt, adtriuisti eos et rennuerunt accipere disciplinam. indurauerunt facies suas super petram et noluerunt reuerti. adhuc causam obdurationis aduerte secundum sententiam sapientissimi Salamonis, qui dicit: impius cum uenerit in profundum malorum, contemnit, id est de adsiduitate peccandi desperatio nascitur, obduratio uero ex desperatione generatur. dum dicit Hieremias: noluerunt reuerti, uides, quia obduratio cordis crimen est propriae uoluntatis. inhonestus, cupidus et cruentus est cuiuslibet facinoris seruus, si peccatis non reluctetur.","english":"XVII. Against What They Say, That God’s Violence Hardens a Person, So That He Cannot Come to Salvation.\n\nIf He Himself, as you blaspheme, hardens, how does He say in the psalm: “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts,” and again: “According to your hardness and your unrepentant heart, you store up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath,” likewise in Jeremiah: “You struck them and they did not grieve, you crushed them and they refused to accept discipline. They hardened their faces upon the rock and refused to turn back.” Moreover, note the cause of hardening according to the judgment of the most wise Solomon, who says: “When the impious man has come into the depth of evils, he despises,” that is, from the habit of sinning, despair is born, and hardening is in fact generated from despair. When Jeremiah says: “They refused to turn back,” you see that the hardening of the heart is a crime of one’s own will. Dishonorable, greedy, and bloodstained is the slave of any crime whatsoever, if he does not struggle against his sins.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XVII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA DEI UIOLENTIA INDURET HOMINEM, NE VENIRE UALEAT AD SALUTEM.","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading states the opponents' claim that divine violence causes hardening, which Faustus refutes by arguing that hardening stems from human will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"hodie si uocem eius audieritis, nolite obdurare corda uestra","severity":"info","text":"This psalm citation (likely Ps 94:8 LXX or similar) is used to show that God commands against hardening, contradicting the idea that He causes it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum duritiam autem tuam et inpaenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae","severity":"info","text":"This verse (cf. Deut 32:22 LXX or similar) links hardness and unrepentance to divine wrath, reinforcing Faustus' argument that hardening is self-inflicted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"indurauerunt facies suas super petram et noluerunt reuerti","severity":"info","text":"Jeremiah (cf. Jer 5:3 LXX) describes the people's refusal to turn back, which Faustus interprets as evidence that hardening is a voluntary crime.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"impius cum uenerit in profundum malorum, contemnit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus cites Solomon (likely Prov 18:3 LXX or similar) to argue that habitual sinning leads to despair, which generates hardening—a psychological rather than divine mechanism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"obduratio","severity":"info","text":"The term 'obduratio' (hardening) is central: Faustus redefines it as a moral failing of the will, not an effect of God's violence, countering the opponents' claim.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The specific psalm and proverb references are not identified in the text; the citations are approximate based on common Latin Bible usage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Videamus autem, unde obduratio ista nascatur. non utique uiolentia conpellentis, sed clementia relaxantis obdurationis occasio est, dumque ad paenitentiam sustinet delinquentem infatigabilis bonitas, abutitur beniuolentia remittentis elata securitas. ideo ait beatus apostolus: an diuitias bonitatis eius et patientiae et longanimitatis contemnis ignorans, quoniam benignitas dei ad paenitentiam te adducit? secundum duritiam autem tuam et cor inpaenitens thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii dei. aduertis, quod apostolus dicendo secundum duritiam tuam et cor inpaenitens non deo, sed homini culpam indurati cordis adscribit: ignorans, inquit, quoniam benignitas dei ad paenitentiam te adducit? secundum duritiam autem tuam et inpaenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii dei. agnosce, quia non austeritas dei indurat malorum corda, sed bonitas. nam quia tribulationum laboribus ac flagellis pro dei patientia non affliguntur, ideo superbia deprauantur. quod ita esse euidenter et propheta commemorat dicens: in laboribus hominum non sunt et cum hominibus non flagellabuntur, ideo tenuit eos superbia eorum. ac sic dum poena in iudicium reseruatur dumque ad emendationem prouocat domini longanimitas, in seruo contemptum nutrit inpunitas.","english":"Let us see, then, from what this hardening arises. It is not at all from the violence of one who compels, but the occasion of hardening is from the clemency of one who relaxes, and while unfailing goodness sustains the delinquent for repentance, the elated security abuses the benevolence of the one who forgives. Hence the blessed apostle says: “Do you despise the riches of His goodness and patience and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you store up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God.” Do you note that the apostle, by saying “according to your hardness and impenitent heart,” ascribes the fault of the hardened heart not to God, but to man: “not knowing,” he says, “that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you store up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God.” Recognize that it is not God’s severity that hardens the hearts of the wicked, but His goodness. For because they are not afflicted by the labors of tribulations and by scourges on account of God’s patience, they are therefore corrupted by pride. That this is so, the prophet also clearly recalls, saying: “They are not in the labors of men, and they will not be scourged with men, therefore their pride has taken hold of them.” And thus, while punishment is reserved for judgment, and while the Lord’s long-suffering summons to correction, impunity fosters contempt in the servant.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Videamus autem, unde obduratio ista nascatur","severity":"info","text":"This sentence opens a new argumentative unit, shifting from refuting opponents to analyzing the origin of hardening.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"an diuitias bonitatis eius et patientiae et longanimitatis contemnis ignorans, quoniam benignitas dei ad paenitentiam te adducit?","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 1:3, though the Vulgate reads 'benignitatis' not 'bonitatis'; Faustus adapts the verse to his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum duritiam autem tuam et cor inpaenitens thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii dei","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Romans 2:5, but Faustus expands the phrase with 'et reuelationis iusti iudicii dei', not found in the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"in laboribus hominum non sunt et cum hominibus non flagellabuntur, ideo tenuit eos superbia eorum","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of Psalm 72:4 (LXX) or a similar sapiential text, possibly from a Latin Psalter variant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"obduratio","severity":"info","text":"The term 'obduratio' (hardening) is central to Faustus's anti-Pelagian polemic, arguing that God's patience, not coercion, causes human obstinacy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"benignitas dei ad paenitentiam te adducit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's emphasis on God's kindness leading to repentance was later criticized by semi-Pelagian opponents as undermining divine grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the scriptural citations is uncertain; Faustus may be quoting from memory or a Latin version differing from the Vulgate."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"qui reddit, inquit, unicuique secundum opera sua, certe non inponit deus homini secundum praescientiam peccandi necessitatem, a quo secundum opera sua legitur exacturus esse rationem. peccaui, inquit propheta, et quid accidit mihi triste? hoc est dicere: certum est deum nescire peccata, qui non accelerat pro ultione supplicia, et iterum: dixit enim in corde suo: oblitus est deus, auertit faciem suam, ne uideat usque in finem. dum ergo dicit oblitus est deus, patientiam remittentis neglegentiam iudicat ignorantis et arbitratur oblitum, quod magnanimus dispensator reseruat in posterum. quo genere metuentem admonitio dei castigantis emendat, contemnentem magis lenitas moderantis obdurat, ut putet de deo impius, quod usque in finem ignorantia obscurante non uideat, quidquid ad praesens beniuolentia sustinentis punire dissimulat, et, cum probetur ab insultante contemptus, obdurationem putatur operatus. dum enim iram inter crebrescentia peccata suspendit, peccatorem insultare permittit.","english":"who renders, it says, to each according to his works, certainly does not impose on man the necessity of sinning according to his foreknowledge, from whom he is read to exact an account according to his works. \"I have sinned,\" says the prophet, \"and what sad thing has happened to me?\" That is to say: it is certain that God does not know sins, because he does not hasten to punish with vengeance; and again: \"For he said in his heart: God has forgotten, he turns his face away, so that he does not see until the end.\" Therefore, while he says \"God has forgotten,\" he judges the patience of the one who forgives as the negligence of one who is ignorant, and he considers forgotten what the magnanimous steward reserves for later. In this manner, the admonition of a punishing God corrects the one who fears, while the leniency of a moderate God hardens the one who scorns, so that the impious man thinks of God that, until the end, with ignorance obscuring, he does not see whatever at present the benevolence of the one who endures refrains from punishing; and, when contempt is proven by the one who insults, it is thought to have wrought hardening. For while he suspends his anger amid multiplying sins, he allows the sinner to insult.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum opera sua","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes Romans 2:6, where Paul speaks of God rendering to each according to his works, a key proof-text in the grace controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"peccaui, inquit propheta, et quid accidit mihi triste?","severity":"info","text":"This appears to be a loose paraphrase of Psalm 72 (LXX) or a similar penitential psalm, though the exact source is uncertain; it reflects the sinner's impunity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"obdurationem","severity":"info","text":"The term 'obduratio' (hardening) is central to Faustus's argument: it is not caused by divine coercion but by human misinterpretation of God's patience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"patientiam remittentis neglegentiam iudicat ignorantis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus refutes the idea that God's delay in punishment implies ignorance or forgetfulness, a view he attributes to Pelagian or semi-Pelagian opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"dum enim iram inter crebrescentia peccata suspendit","severity":"info","text":"This clause concludes the passage by contrasting divine suspension of anger with the sinner's increasing insolence, reinforcing the theme of hardening through leniency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"obdurationem putatur operatus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's argument that divine patience can cause hardening was later cited in the controversy over semi-Pelagianism, notably by Prosper of Aquitaine.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Prosper of Aquitaine"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'peccaui, inquit propheta, et quid accidit mihi triste?' is not a direct biblical quotation; its source is unclear, possibly a paraphrase of Psalm 72 or a similar text.","The Latin 'obdurationem putatur operatus' is ambiguous: it could mean 'hardening is thought to have been wrought' or 'he is thought to have wrought hardening'; the translation follows the passive sense."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"XVIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA HOMINES UOLUNTATE DEI INPELLANTUR IN MORTEM.\n\nSi autem, ut dicit haereticus, per uoluntatem dei trahuntur homines in perditionem, quomodo in lectione Regum mulier loquitur ad Dauid: nec uult, inquit, deus perire animam, sed retractat cogitans, ne penitus pereat, qui abiectus est? item Ezechiel sub uerbis dei ita disserit: multo labore sudatum est et non exiit ab ea nimia rubigo eius neque per ignem inmunditia tua exsecrabilis, quia mundare te uolui et non es mundata a sordibus tuis. ecce deus hominem non solum saluari optat, sed pro eius purgatione multo labore desudat. porro pro ratione iustitiae per se effectum medentis cura non peragit, quia uoluntatem eius, qui est purgandus, expectat. item: defecit sufflatorium, frustra conflauit sufflator. malitiae enim uestrae non sunt consumptae. dum audis sufflatorium uel conflatoris officium, intellege purum metallum adulterina permixtione corruptum et a naturali sinceritate uitiatum. si homo in mortem inpulsu ac uoluntate dei agitur, cur item sub Ezechiele inputans et uelut dolens loquitur: quare moriemini, domus Israel, quoniam nolo mortem impii, dicit dominus? reuertimini et uiuite. et quomodo eos in mortem, ut blasphemas, inpellit, quos ad uitam non solum nutu iubentis, sed affectu supplicantis inuitat?","english":"XVIII. AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT MEN ARE DRIVEN INTO DEATH BY THE WILL OF GOD.\n\nIf, however, as the heretic says, men are drawn into perdition by the will of God, how is it that in the reading of Kings the woman speaks to David: \"God does not wish,\" she says, \"the soul to perish, but he deliberates, thinking lest he who has been cast away should utterly perish\"? Likewise Ezekiel, in the words of God, discourses thus: \"I have labored with much toil, and its excessive rust has not come out of it, nor has your abominable filth been removed by fire, because I wished to cleanse you and you have not been cleansed of your impurities.\" Behold, God not only desires man to be saved, but sweats with much labor for his purification. Moreover, for the sake of justice, the effect of the healer's care is not accomplished by itself, because it awaits the will of the one who is to be cleansed. Likewise: \"The bellows have failed, the blower has blown in vain. For your evils have not been consumed.\" When you hear of the office of the bellows or the blower, understand pure metal corrupted by adulterous mixture and vitiated from its natural sincerity. If man is driven into death by the impulse and will of God, why does God, again in Ezekiel, speaking reproachfully and as if grieving, say: \"Why will you die, house of Israel, since I do not want the death of the impious, says the Lord? Return and live.\" And how does he drive them into death, as you blasphemously claim, when he invites them to life not only by the nod of a commander but by the affection of a suppliant?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XVIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA HOMINES UOLUNTATE DEI INPELLANTUR IN MORTEM.","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading states the target of Faustus's refutation: the claim that God's will drives men to death. This frames the following scriptural arguments as a direct rebuttal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nec uult, inquit, deus perire animam, sed retractat cogitans, ne penitus pereat, qui abiectus est","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 2 Samuel 14:14, where the woman of Tekoa speaks to David. Faustus adapts the verse to argue that God does not will the soul's perdition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"multo labore sudatum est et non exiit ab ea nimia rubigo eius neque per ignem inmunditia tua exsecrabilis","severity":"info","text":"This passage echoes Ezekiel 22:18-22, where God laments Israel's impurity. Faustus uses it to show God's desire to cleanse, not destroy, the sinner.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"defecit sufflatorium, frustra conflauit sufflator. malitiae enim uestrae non sunt consumptae.","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of Ezekiel 22:20-21, describing failed purification. Faustus interprets the bellows and blower as metaphors for God's futile efforts to purge sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quare moriemini, domus Israel, quoniam nolo mortem impii, dicit dominus? reuertimini et uiuite.","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Ezekiel 33:11, where God calls Israel to repentance. Faustus uses it to argue that God invites to life, not death.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haereticus","severity":"info","text":"The 'heretic' likely refers to proponents of a deterministic grace, possibly followers of Augustine's later predestinarian views, whom Faustus opposes in this treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scriptural citations are paraphrased and not verbatim from the Vulgate; the exact source text is uncertain.","The identity of the 'heretic' is not specified; it may refer to a specific contemporary opponent or a general position."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"item: uiuo ego, dicit dominus, nolo mortem impii, sed ut reuertatur impius a uia sua et uiuat. reditum se in potestate habere cognoscat, qui a domino prouocatur, ut redeat. uiuo ego, dicit dominus. ne de indulgentia reus dubitet, iudex clementiam suam etiam quadam sacramenti interpositione confirmat. sed per apostoli Petri sententiam uoluntas benignissimi insinuatur auctoris: non tardat, inquit, dominus promissum suum, sed patienter agit propter uos nolens aliquos perire, sed ad paenitentiam reuerti. peccanti ingeritur paenitentia, ut in conferenda misericordia locum possit habere iustitia. sed patienter, inquit, agit emendationem hominis, quia inpatienter desiderat, patienter expectat. item secundum Lucam: et ut adpropinquauit, uidens ciuitatem fleuit super illam dicens: non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem eo, quod non cognoueris tempus uisitationis tuae.","english":"I live,” says the Lord, “I do not desire the death of the impious, but that the impious man turn back from his way and live.” Let him who is summoned by the Lord to return recognize that the return is in his own power. “I live,” says the Lord. Lest the guilty one doubt concerning the indulgence, the judge confirms his clemency even by a certain interposition of an oath. But through the sentence of the Apostle Peter the will of the most benevolent author is intimated: “The Lord,” he says, “does not delay his promise, but acts patiently for your sake, not wishing any to perish, but to return to penance.” Penance is urged upon the sinner, so that in granting mercy justice may be able to have its place. “But he acts patiently,” he says, for the correction of man, because he impatiently desires, he patiently awaits. Likewise according to Luke: “And when he drew near, seeing the city, he wept over it, saying: ‘They will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.’","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uiuo ego, dicit dominus, nolo mortem impii, sed ut reuertatur impius a uia sua et uiuat","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Ezekiel 33:11, where God says he desires the sinner's repentance, not death. The phrasing echoes the Vetus Latina tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non tardat, inquit, dominus promissum suum, sed patienter agit propter uos nolens aliquos perire, sed ad paenitentiam reuerti","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 2 Peter 3:9, though the exact wording is not canonical; it reflects a patristic adaptation emphasizing God's patience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et ut adpropinquauit, uidens ciuitatem fleuit super illam dicens: non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem eo, quod non cognoueris tempus uisitationis tuae","severity":"info","text":"This is a non-canonical saying attributed to Jesus, possibly from a lost apocryphal gospel or a patristic source, not found in the canonical Luke.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"uiuo ego, dicit dominus","severity":"info","text":"The repeated oath formula 'I live, says the Lord' is a rhetorical device used by Faustus to emphasize God's personal commitment to mercy, echoing Old Testament divine speech.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"item ... item","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses 'item' to introduce a series of scriptural testimonies, a common structural marker in patristic florilegia, building a cumulative argument against the claim that God wills perdition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"sed patienter, inquit, agit emendationem hominis, quia inpatienter desiderat, patienter expectat","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'inpatienter desiderat, patienter expectat' is paradoxical; the Latin may be corrupt or deliberately antithetical. The sense is that God eagerly desires correction but waits patiently.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Luke citation is uncertain; it may be apocryphal or a misattribution. The phrase 'inpatienter desiderat' may be a textual corruption or a rhetorical oxymoron."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Hic constringendi sunt haeretici. si dominus perituris salutis intercluserat aditum, ergo falso istorum defleuit exitium. si autem eorum perditionem uero, ut manifestum est, maerore perdoluit, non uoluntatem suam homini, sed consensum hominis uoluntati suae defuisse monstrauit. quid mirum si pro salute hominis lacrimas fundit mox sanguinem profusurus? item in Matthaeo: Hierusalem, quae occidis prophetas et lapidas eos, qui ad te missi sunt, quotiens uolui congregare filios tuos, sicut gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas suas, et noluisti? duas res hic agit sermo diuinus. nam dum dicit: quotiens uolui et noluisti, in deo propositi bonitas, in homine arbitrii est expressa libertas. dicendo autem: Hierusalem, quae occidis prophetas et lapidas eos, qui ad te missi sunt, saluare se eos uoluisse pronuntiat, cum euidenter proferat causas, per quas salutem eis negare debuerit. hoc loco duplici genere in seruo iniquitas cruentae mentis ostenditur, in domino indulgentia benignissimae uoluntatis aperitur. si deus perire uult hominem, quomodo dicit etiam propheta Michaeas: indicabo tibi o homo, quid sit bonum et quid dominus requirat a te, utique facere iudicium et diligere misericordiam et sollicitum ambulare cum deo tuo. dum dicit: et quid dominus quaerat a te, utique facere iudicium, promptam exercendi boni operis uoluntatem non reposceret, si non dedisset.","english":"Here the heretics must be constrained. If the Lord had blocked the way of salvation for those who were perishing, then their lament over their destruction would be false. But if, as is evident, He truly grieved their ruin with sorrow, He showed that it was not His will that was lacking to man, but man’s consent to His will. What wonder if He sheds tears for the salvation of man, soon to pour forth His blood? Likewise in Matthew: “Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who were sent to you, how often did I wish to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling?” Here the divine discourse does two things. For when it says, “how often did I wish and you were unwilling,” the goodness of intention is expressed in God, the freedom of choice in man. But by saying, “Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who were sent to you,” it declares that He wished to save them, even as it plainly sets forth the reasons for which He ought to have denied them salvation. In this passage, the iniquity of a bloodthirsty mind is shown in the servant in a twofold manner, and the indulgence of a most benevolent will is revealed in the Lord. If God wishes man to perish, how is it that the prophet Micah also says: “I will show you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you, namely, to do justice and to love mercy and to walk carefully with your God”? When it says, “and what the Lord requires of you, namely, to do justice,” He would not demand a ready will to perform a good work if He had not given it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hierusalem, quae occidis prophetas et lapidas eos, qui ad te missi sunt, quotiens uolui congregare filios tuos, sicut gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas sua","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Matthew 23:37, where Jesus laments Jerusalem's rejection of prophets and messengers. Faustus adapts the verse to emphasize divine will and human free choice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"indicabo tibi o homo, quid sit bonum et quid dominus requirat a te, utique facere iudicium et diligere misericordiam et sollicitum ambulare cum deo tuo","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of Micah 6:8 (LXX) or a similar passage, urging justice, mercy, and walking with God. Faustus uses it to argue that God's demand for good works implies He granted the will to perform them.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haeretici","severity":"info","text":"The 'heretics' are likely the semi-Pelagians or those denying the necessity of grace for perseverance, against whom Faustus argues for human free will and divine cooperation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hic constringendi sunt haeretici","severity":"info","text":"This sentence opens a new argumentative section, directly addressing opponents. The phrase 'constringendi sunt' signals a polemical turn, reinforcing the treatise's rhetorical structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"arbitrii libertas","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'freedom of choice,' is central to Faustus's defense of human free will against deterministic interpretations of grace. It echoes earlier Latin theological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas suas","severity":"info","text":"The hen-and-chicks simile is a common biblical image for divine protection (cf. Psalm 90:4 LXX, 2 Esdras 16:35). Faustus uses it to illustrate God's persistent, nurturing call to repentance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact source of the Micah citation is uncertain; it may be a conflation or paraphrase of Micah 6:8 and other prophetic texts.","The phrase 'sicut gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas suas' is not verbatim from the Vulgate Matthew, suggesting Faustus quotes from memory or a variant Old Latin version."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"uides, quia, sicut dei est, ut prouocans adhortetur, ita oboedientiae hominis reseruatum est, ut sequatur.\n\nLIBER SECUNDUS.\n\nCONTRA HOC, QVOD IMPIE ASSERUNT A DEO INDURATUM FUISSE COR PHARAONIS.\n\nHic sensum scripturae sanctae sollicitius perscrutemur et obicientis animum consulamus, utrum Pharao uolens an inuitus a domino fuerit induratus. si nolens, ipsi utique culpam obdurationis adsignas, si uero inuitus, iniquitatem dei obdurantis accusas. quae enim iustitia erat, ei, quem ipse obdurauerat, ipse puniret? cum uero dominus ipse ad eum loquatur et dicat: cur non uis dimittere populum meum uel\n\n. usquequo non uis subici mihi? ecce ubi diuinis testimoniis liberam fuisse in Pharaone agnoscimus uoluntatem. hac ratione Pharaonem, dicit dominus, obdurabo, dum eum mihi in decem plagis, quas a Moyse exoratus remoueo, insultare permitto. ego, inquit, obdurabo cor Pharaonis. sic interdum familiariter etiam apud homines genus huius elocutionis adsumimus, sic interdum contumacibus famulis exprobramus mansuetudinem nostram ita dicentes: ego patientia mea pessimum (te) feci, ego remissione mea malitiam tuam superbiamque nutriui, ego te contumacem indulgentia mea reddidi, ego dissimulatione mea cor tuum, ut contra me obduraretur, animaui. et hoc modo, quod in bonitate domini uirtutis est testimonium, in serui inprobitate fit uitium.","english":"You see that, just as it belongs to God to exhort by way of challenge, so it is reserved for human obedience to follow.\n\nBOOK TWO.\n\nAGAINST THE IMPIOUS ASSERTION THAT PHARAOH’S HEART WAS HARDENED BY GOD.\n\nHere let us scrutinize the sense of Holy Scripture more carefully and consult the mind of the objector, as to whether Pharaoh was hardened by the Lord willingly or unwillingly. If unwillingly, you assign the blame for the hardening to him; if, however, unwillingly, you accuse the injustice of the God who hardens. For what justice would it be, that He should punish the one whom He Himself had hardened? But when the Lord Himself speaks to him and says: “Why will you not let my people go?” or “How long will you not submit to me?” — behold, where by divine testimonies we recognize that Pharaoh’s will was free. By this reasoning, the Lord says, “I will harden Pharaoh,” while I permit him to insult me in the ten plagues, which I remove at Moses’ entreaty. “I,” He says, “will harden Pharaoh’s heart.” Thus sometimes, even among men, we familiarly adopt this kind of expression; thus sometimes we reproach stubborn servants with our own gentleness, saying: “It is my patience that made you worst; it is my leniency that nurtured your malice and pride; it is my indulgence that rendered you contumacious; it is my dissimulation that animated your heart to be hardened against me.” And in this way, what is a testimony of virtue in the Lord’s goodness becomes a vice in the servant’s wickedness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Liber Secundus","severity":"info","text":"The passage marks the beginning of Book Two, with a new heading that introduces the specific topic of Pharaoh's hardening, shifting from the general discussion of divine will and human obedience in Book One.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cur non uis dimittere populum meum","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Exodus 5:1, where Moses demands Pharaoh let Israel go, though the phrasing is adapted. The second question, 'usquequo non uis subici mihi?', is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of God's challenge to Pharaoh.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"obdurabo","severity":"info","text":"The future tense 'obdurabo' ('I will harden') is used by Faustus to represent God's ironic self-attribution of hardening, drawing on Exodus 4:21 and 7:3, where God says he will harden Pharaoh's heart. Faustus interprets this as a rhetorical device, not a literal divine action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"decem plagis","severity":"info","text":"The ten plagues are a standard element of the Exodus narrative (Exodus 7–12). Faustus refers to them to argue that Pharaoh's hardening was a response to God's leniency in removing the plagues at Moses' intercession, not a direct divine imposition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ego patientia mea ... feci","severity":"info","text":"Faustus draws a parallel between God's ironic speech about hardening Pharaoh and a common human reproach to stubborn servants, where a master claims that his own patience or leniency caused the servant's bad behavior. This analogy supports his interpretation of divine hardening as indirect.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustus of Riez","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus's semi-Pelagian position on free will and grace was later condemned at the Council of Orange (529). His argument here, that Pharaoh's hardening was self-inflicted, reflects his broader theology that human will retains freedom even under divine influence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'inuitus' in the phrase 'si uero inuitus' is ambiguous: it could mean 'unwilling' (as in the English draft) or 'compelled'. The context contrasts 'uolens' (willing) and 'inuitus' (unwilling), but the latter could also imply external force. The reading taken is 'unwilling' to maintain the logical contrast with 'uolens'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"Ait autem sermo diuinus: uidensque Pharao eo, quod data esset requies, ingrauauit cor suum. manifestissime hoc loco indulta requies cor Pharaonis indurasse perscribitur. hoc enim, quod dicit: obdurauit cor suum, non passiuum uerbum est, sed actiuum. uis scire, quia diuina moderatione ob causam induratae mentis operatur? idem ipse Pharao in decem plagis positus cum percuteretur, mitigabatur, cum laxaretur, ingrauabatur. ac sic impium diuina seueritas inclinabat, bonitas obdurabat, et, ut se esse liberi arbitrii demonstraret, castigante deo populum dimittebat, parcente reuocabat. perspice, quomodo rebellem spiritum caelestis lenitas obdurat. accedentibus mitescit flagellis, recedentibus insolescit. agnosce rationem obdurationis et uim propriae uoluntatis. Hebraeum populum, quem egredi pro inposita sibi contritione nunc praecipit et pro plagarum moderatione nunc prohibet, ad extremum incumbentibus plagis etiam festinus abire perurget et conpellit. non ergo induratur in multa dei potentia, sed contemptor efficitur in multa dei patientia. denique inter alternas uices castigationis et remissionis flagellatus humiliatur, exauditus erigitur, liberatus insultat, afflictus obtemperat et filios Israel, quos post decimam plagam emisisse cognoscitur, ad primam eum emittere potuisse uoluntas postrema testatur.","english":"The divine word says: \"And Pharaoh, seeing that rest had been given, hardened his heart.\" In this passage it is most clearly recorded that the granted rest hardened Pharaoh's heart. For what it says: \"he hardened his heart\" is not a passive verb, but an active one. Do you wish to know that it is by divine moderation that the hardening of the mind is brought about for a reason? This same Pharaoh, placed under the ten plagues, was softened when he was struck, and hardened when he was given respite. And thus impious severity inclined him, goodness hardened him, and, to show that he was of free will, when God punished, he released the people; when God spared, he recalled them. Observe how heavenly gentleness hardens the rebellious spirit. He grows meek when the scourges approach, insolent when they recede. Recognize the reason for the hardening and the force of his own will. The Hebrew people, whom he now orders to depart because of the contrition imposed upon him, and now forbids to depart because of the moderation of the plagues, in the end, under the pressing plagues, he even urgently hastens and compels them to leave. Therefore, he is not hardened by the great power of God, but becomes a despiser through the great patience of God. Finally, amid the alternating turns of punishment and remission, when scourged he is humbled, when heard he is raised up, when freed he insults, when afflicted he obeys; and the sons of Israel, whom he is known to have sent out after the tenth plague, his final will testifies that he could have sent them out at the first.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uidensque Pharao eo, quod data esset requies, ingrauauit cor suum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Exodus 8:15 (LXX: ἐβαρύνθη ἡ καρδία Φαραώ), but his Latin version shifts the verb to active voice, emphasizing Pharaoh's agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ingrauauit cor suum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus insists the verb is active (actiuum), not passive, to argue that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, countering claims of divine coercion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"non ergo induratur in multa dei potentia, sed contemptor efficitur in multa dei patientia","severity":"info","text":"This antithesis contrasts divine power (potentia) with divine patience (patientia), framing Pharaoh's hardening as a response to God's forbearance, not force.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"decem plagis","severity":"info","text":"The ten plagues of Exodus (7–12) are here interpreted as a pedagogical cycle: punishment humbles, respite emboldens, illustrating Faustus's view of free will under divine discipline.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"obdurauit cor suum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's active-voice reading of Exodus 8:15 was contested in the semi-Pelagian controversy; later Augustinian tradition maintained the passive sense to stress divine predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text does not specify which biblical version Faustus used for the Exodus citation; the Vulgate reads 'ingravatum est cor Pharaonis' (passive), but Faustus's active form may reflect an Old Latin variant or his own exegetical choice."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"et cum inter medias correptiones profiteatur: iustus es, domine, ego uero et populus meus impii, non se a deo, sed a uoluntate propria deprauatum conscientiae suae testis ostendit. et tu deum circa Pharaonem durum uel iniquum fuisse praesumis asserere, quem circa se iustum et pium ipse sacrilegus non potuit abnegare?\n\nInmitem deum Christianus esse conqueritur, quem pium etiam impius confitetur? hoc ergo agit in hominibus caelestis misericordiae dispensatio, quod in terris pluuiae superuenientis infusio. ad copiosi imbris inlapsum cultus et edomitus cespes multiplicatur germinum fetibus, uerum incultus et crudus inutilibus herbis repletur et sentibus, ac sic unus idemque imber duas res diuersas atque contrarias iuxta culturae aut studium operatur aut uitium, sicut legimus: terra enim saepe uenientem super se bibens imbrem et generans herbam oportunam illis, a quibus colitur, accipit benedictionem a deo. proferens autem spinas ac tribulos reproba est et maledictio proxima, cuius consummatio in conbustionem. agnosce terram sub uno eodemque imbre nunc spinas et tribulos germinantem, nunc fructus benedictionibus idoneos proferentem. eodem modo dum misericordia dei expectat et parcit, emendatur oboediens, obduratur inpaenitens.","english":"And when, in the midst of reproaches, he declares: \"You are just, Lord, but I and my people are impious,\" he shows himself, not as corrupted by God, but by his own will, bearing witness to his own conscience. And do you presume to assert that God was harsh or unjust toward Pharaoh, whom even that sacrilegious man could not deny to be just and merciful toward himself?\n\nDoes a Christian complain that God is harsh, whom even an impious man confesses to be merciful? Thus the dispensation of heavenly mercy works among men as the infusion of a rain shower does on earth. When a copious rain falls, a cultivated and tamed sod multiplies with the offspring of shoots, but an uncultivated and raw one fills up with useless weeds and thorns; and thus one and the same rain produces two different and contrary results, according to the cultivation or the effort, or the vice, as we read: for the earth, often drinking in the rain that falls upon it and generating the appropriate herb for those who cultivate it, receives a blessing from God. But producing thorns and thistles, it is reprobate and near to a curse, whose end is in burning. Recognize the earth under one and the same rain, now sprouting thorns and thistles, now bringing forth fruits fit for blessings. In the same way, while the mercy of God waits and spares, the obedient is corrected, the unrepentant is hardened.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iustus es, domine, ego uero et populus meus impii","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Pharaoh's confession from Exodus 9:27, where Pharaoh acknowledges God's justice but not his own guilt; the phrasing here is a free paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"terra enim saepe uenientem super se bibens imbrem","severity":"info","text":"The agricultural metaphor of rain on cultivated vs. uncultivated ground echoes a common patristic topos, found in authors like Augustine and Ambrose, to illustrate divine grace and human responsibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc ergo agit in hominibus caelestis misericordiae dispensatio, quod in terris pluuiae superuenientis infusio","severity":"info","text":"This sentence introduces an extended simile (rain on earth = divine mercy on humans), which structures the following argument about obedience and hardening.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"agnosce terram sub uno eodemque imbre nunc spinas et tribulos germinantem, nunc fructus benedictionibus idoneos proferentem","severity":"info","text":"The dual outcome of rain (thorns vs. fruit) parallels Faustus's earlier contrast between Pharaoh's hardening and the obedient's correction, reinforcing his anti-Pelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inmitem deum Christianus esse conqueritur, quem pium etiam impius confitetur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus counters critics who accuse him of portraying God as harsh; this reflects the controversy with the Scythian monks, who charged Faustus with semi-Pelagianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"cuius consummatio in conbustionem","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'whose end is in burning' may allude to eschatological punishment, but the Latin is ambiguous: it could refer to the earth's burning (as in agricultural clearing) or to damnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the quotation 'terra enim saepe uenientem...' is not identified; it may be a paraphrase of a biblical or patristic text, but no exact match is known.","The phrase 'cuius consummatio in conbustionem' is ambiguous: it could mean the land is burned (as a natural end) or that the reprobate are consigned to hellfire."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"II. QVOD PRAESCIENTIA DEI NEC AD IUSTA NEC AD CONTRARIA HUMANAS UIOLENTER URGEAT UOLUNTATES.\n\nPraescientiam et praedestinationem dei male intellegunt astruentes, quod inde humanorum actuum causa nascatur. primum, quid ex quo pendeat uel procedat, perspicere debemus. non propterea homo quodcumque facturus est, quia eum coactura sit praescientis auctoritas, sed magis deo praesciendi ingerit qualitatem libertas praesciti hominis ac uoluntas. ergo non de uiolentia praeuidendi inponitur homini causa peccandi, sed magis de consecuturis hominum meritis ordo exoritur praenoscendi. generalis itaque praescientia, quae de statu mundi totius apud deum manet, de potentia nascitur, sed circa statum hominis qualitates et species praenoscendi de humani actus inspectione mutuatur.\n\nSed inter ista deo respondes et dicis:s o domine, quomodo bonum adprehendere ualui, quem tu malum futurum esse praescisti? non ita est. aliud est, quod uult deus, aliud est, quod permittit deus. uult itaque bonum et permittit malum, praescit utrumque. iusta bonitate adiuuat, iniusta pro arbitrii libertate permittit. de suo est, quod dat gratiam, de tuo, quod praenoscit offensam. et inde est, quod circa iniquos incessabiliter inuenitur prohibere, quae prouidit.","english":"II. That God’s Foreknowledge Does Not Violently Compel Human Wills Either to Right or to Wrong Actions.\n\nThose who maintain that the cause of human actions arises from it misunderstand God’s foreknowledge and predestination. First, we must discern what depends on what, or what proceeds from what. It is not that a man will do something because the authority of the one who foreknows will compel him, but rather that the freedom and will of the foreknown man imposes the quality of foreknowing upon God. Therefore, the cause of sinning is not imposed on man by the violence of foreseeing, but rather the order of foreknowing arises from the merits of men that are to follow. Thus, the general foreknowledge, which remains with God concerning the state of the whole world, arises from his power, but concerning the state of man, the qualities and species of foreknowing are borrowed from the inspection of the human act.\n\nBut amid these things, you answer God and say: O Lord, how could I have managed to grasp the good, when you foreknew that I would be evil? It is not so. It is one thing that God wills, another that God permits. He wills the good, therefore, and permits evil; he foreknows both. By his just goodness he aids, by the freedom of the will he permits the unjust. What is from him is that he gives grace; what is from you is that he foreknows the offense. And hence it is that, concerning the wicked, he is found incessantly forbidding what he has foreseen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"II. QVOD PRAESCIENTIA DEI NEC AD IUSTA NEC AD CONTRARIA HUMANAS UIOLENTER URGEAT UOLUNTATES","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading introduces the second major argument of the treatise, distinguishing Faustus’s position from predestinarian views by asserting that divine foreknowledge does not coerce human will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"praescientia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses praescientia (foreknowledge) to denote God’s passive awareness of future human actions, not a causal determination. This distinction is central to his anti-predestinarian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"praedestinatio","severity":"info","text":"Faustus rejects the notion that praedestinatio (predestination) implies compulsion; he argues that foreknowledge follows from human merit rather than causing it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"astruentes","severity":"info","text":"The term astruentes (those who maintain) likely refers to proponents of a strong predestinarian doctrine, possibly followers of Lucidus or others Faustus opposed at the Council of Arles (c. 473).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non propterea homo quodcumque facturus est, quia eum coactura sit praescientis auctoritas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus inverts the causal relationship: human freedom imposes the quality of foreknowledge on God, not vice versa. This is a key move in his defense of free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"aliud est, quod uult deus, aliud est, quod permittit deus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes God’s will (for good) from his permission (of evil), a standard Augustinian distinction used to reconcile divine foreknowledge with human responsibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the interlocutor addressed as 'you' (respondes et dicis) is not specified; it may be a rhetorical opponent or a generic doubter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"numquam praua hominum studia praeciperet ad meliora conuerti, si ea sciret non posse mutari, et ideo respondebit tibi consequenter diuina prouidentia:s o homo, non te talem feci, qualem te futurum esse praesciui. bonum te pro iustitiae meae lege formaui et, ne malum sequereris, admonui, malum te pro consecutura uoluntatum tuarum iniquitate praeuidi. ubi non conpulsio, sed consensio peccandi deprehenditur in querella, non auctor, sed praeuaricator in culpa est. si ad factorem, inquit, o homo, respicis, bonus esse potuisti, si ad praecognitorem, tu me pro gestorum tuorum ordine, ut de te malum praenoscerem, conpulisti.\n\nSed reuoluis et dicis: praescientia et praedestinatio humanorum actuum atque meritorum praefigit et excitat causas. non ita est. magis de origine uoluntatis humanae genus praescientiae deriuatur. sed ut aliqui cogitationis suae prauitate ducantur et actus suos de praescientia aestiment inchoari, hoc de proprio animi uitio ac de inemendabili obstinatione procedit, dum simulant passionibus reluctari et putant se non posse, quod nolunt. legem dicunt esse inmutabilis mali consuetudinem delinquendi. sed adhuc dicis, quia opera ac uoluntates hominum de nutu et inpulsu praescientiae caelestis incipiant. non ita est. hoc potius agnosce, quod praescientia dei de materia humanorum actuum sumat exordium.","english":"Never would it command the perverse pursuits of men to be converted to better things, if it knew they could not be changed, and therefore divine providence will answer you accordingly: O man, I did not make you such as I foreknew you would be. I formed you good according to the law of my justice and, lest you follow evil, I admonished you; I foresaw you as evil according to the iniquity of your wills that would follow. Where there is no compulsion, but a consent to sinning, the complaint finds not the author, but the transgressor, at fault. If you look to the maker, O man, it says, you could have been good; if to the foreknower, you compelled me, by the order of your deeds, to foreknow evil concerning you.\n\nBut you turn back and say: foreknowledge and predestination fix and excite the causes of human acts and merits. It is not so. Rather, the origin of human will is the source from which the nature of foreknowledge is derived. But that some are led by the depravity of their own thought and judge their actions to begin from foreknowledge—this proceeds from their own vice of mind and from incorrigible obstinacy, while they pretend to struggle against their passions and think they cannot do what they are unwilling to do. They call the law of immutable evil the habit of sinning. But you still say that the works and wills of men begin from the nod and impulse of celestial foreknowledge. It is not so. Rather, recognize this: that the foreknowledge of God takes its beginning from the matter of human acts.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non conpulsio, sed consensio peccandi","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes compulsion from consent, arguing that sin arises from the will's agreement, not from divine coercion. This aligns with his semi-Pelagian defense of human freedom.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praescientia et praedestinatio","severity":"info","text":"Faustus pairs foreknowledge and predestination as the object of his opponents' claim that they fix causes. He consistently subordinates both to human will, a key semi-Pelagian position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed reuoluis et dicis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a rhetorical shift, introducing an objection from an imagined interlocutor. Faustus then refutes it, a common dialectical pattern in late antique theological treatises.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"legem dicunt esse inmutabilis mali consuetudinem delinquendi","severity":"info","text":"Faustus critiques those who treat sinful habit as an immutable law, likely targeting deterministic interpretations of grace. This echoes contemporary debates with Augustinian predestinarians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non te talem feci, qualem te futurum esse praesciui","severity":"info","text":"This divine speech echoes the theodicean tradition (cf. Augustine, De civitate Dei 11.21) but Faustus adapts it to argue that God's foreknowledge does not determine human evil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"praescientia dei de materia humanorum actuum sumat exordium","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus's claim that divine foreknowledge 'takes its beginning' from human acts could be read as limiting God's knowledge. The text likely intends a logical, not temporal, priority of human action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'de materia humanorum actuum sumat exordium' is ambiguous: it may mean foreknowledge derives its content from human acts (logical dependence) or temporally begins after them. The reading taken is logical dependence, consistent with Faustus's overall argument."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"quid de nobis praescire ac praeordinare debeat deus, quantum pertinet ad futurum, in profectu hominis defectuque consistit.\n\nAccipe illud exemplum, quo praescientia dei pro humana se actione conuertit. ad decumbentem Ezechiam regem mors defertur in uerbo tristi uatis ueridici adnuntiata responso ita dicentis: ordina domum tuam, nam cras morieris. at ille conuersus ad fletum ordinauit domum suam, quia humiliauit animam suam. prophetam quidem exploratae sanctitatis agnoscit, sed desperatio spe repellitur: oratio interdicit oraculo, resoluit deprecatio definitionem, fides plena dicti superat ueritatem, ineuitabilem denuntiatae mortis causam extrema uincit deflentis infirmitas. humiliat se fragilitas humana et uim quandam patitur diuina sententia, sicut ait: regnum caelorum uim patitur. omnimodis moriturus fuisset, nisi territus supplicasset. elige utrum uelis, aut praefixam necessitatem confitere mutatam aut ueritatem conuince mentitam.","english":"what God should foreknow and foreordain concerning us, as far as the future is concerned, consists in the progress and decline of man.\n\nTake that example, in which the foreknowledge of God is turned by human action. To the bedridden King Hezekiah, death is brought, announced by the sad word of a truthful prophet in a response saying: Order your house, for tomorrow you will die. But he, turned to weeping, ordered his house, because he humbled his soul. He recognizes the prophet of proven sanctity, but despair is repelled by hope: prayer interdicts the oracle, supplication dissolves the definition, full faith in the saying overcomes the truth, the extreme weakness of the weeping one conquers the unavoidable cause of the announced death. Human frailty humbles itself, and the divine sentence suffers a certain force, as it is said: the kingdom of heaven suffers force. He would have died in every way, unless, terrified, he had supplicated. Choose whichever you wish: either confess that the predetermined necessity was changed, or prove that the truth was lied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ezechiam regem","severity":"info","text":"The story of King Hezekiah's illness and the prophet Isaiah's warning is from 2 Kings 20:1-6 and Isaiah 38:1-5. Faustus adapts it to illustrate divine foreknowledge yielding to human prayer.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"regnum caelorum uim patitur","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'regnum caelorum uim patitur' echoes a common patristic saying, possibly derived from Matthew 19:12 or a similar logion, used here to describe divine sentence yielding to human supplication.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"praescientia dei pro humana se actione conuertit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that divine foreknowledge is not fixed but can be 'turned' by human action, a semi-Pelagian position opposed to Augustine's view of predestination. This reflects the 5th-century controversy in southern Gaul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praescientia","severity":"info","text":"Praescientia (foreknowledge) is distinguished from praedestinatio (predestination) in this passage. Faustus treats foreknowledge as conditional, not necessitating a fixed outcome, a key point in his anti-Augustinian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"elige utrum uelis","severity":"info","text":"The passage ends with a rhetorical dilemma ('choose whichever you wish'), a common device in Faustus's argumentation, forcing the reader to accept either mutable necessity or false prophecy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"uim quandam patitur diuina sententia","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'the divine sentence suffers a certain force' is ambiguous: it may mean God's decree is overridden or that it bends without breaking. Faustus's semi-Pelagian context suggests the former, but the text allows the latter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["Whether 'uim patitur' implies a real change in divine decree or a metaphorical yielding; the semi-Pelagian reading favors the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"III. QVIA ALIUD EST PRAESCIRE, ALIUD PRAEDESTINARE.\n\nApostolus ait: quos praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui. aliud est praescire, aliud praedestinare. praescientia itaque gerenda praenoscit, postmodum praedestinatio retribuenda describit. illa praeuidet merita, haec praeordinat praemia. praescientia ad potentiam, praedestinatio ad iustitiam pertinet. praescientia de alieno subsistit actu, praedestinatio autem de iudicio suo, illa facinus manifestat, ista condemnat, illa testis, haec iudex est. cum illa praenuntiauerit causam, tunc praenuntiat ista sententiam. a praescientia quae sunt nostra produntur, a praedestinatione quae sunt praeparantur. ac sic nisi praescientia explorauerit, praedestinatio nil decernit. oculi autem uicem praescientiae uirtus exercet, quod se aspectui obtulerit, hoc uidebit. numquid fecisse creditur, quod deprehendisse cognoscitur? cum autem oculi ea uideant, non quae ipsi intrinsecus operantur, sed quae eis extrinsecus offeruntur, si peccantem quempiam forte conspexerint, non opinor uidentis, sed committentis flagitium iudicabitur. ita non ad praenoscentis, sed ad praecogniti pertinebit. reatum omne delictum.","english":"III. THAT IT IS ONE THING TO FOREKNOW, ANOTHER TO PREDESTINE.\n\nThe Apostle says: those whom he foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son. It is one thing to foreknow, another to predestine. Foreknowledge, therefore, foreknows what is to be done; afterward, predestination describes what is to be rewarded. The former foresees merits, the latter preordains rewards. Foreknowledge pertains to power, predestination to justice. Foreknowledge subsists from another’s act, but predestination from its own judgment; the former reveals the deed, the latter condemns it; the former is a witness, the latter a judge. When the former has announced the cause, then the latter announces the sentence. From foreknowledge, what is ours is disclosed; from predestination, what is prepared. And thus, unless foreknowledge has investigated, predestination decrees nothing. The eyes, however, perform the function of foreknowledge; what has presented itself to sight, that it will see. Is it believed to have done what it is known to have detected? But since the eyes see those things not which they themselves inwardly produce, but which are outwardly presented to them, if they happen to catch sight of someone sinning, I think the crime will be judged not of the seer, but of the committer. Thus every offense will pertain not to the foreknower, but to the foreknown.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quos praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 8:29, which in the Vulgate reads: 'quos praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui.' Faustus adds 'praesciuit et' to emphasize the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praescientia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'praescientia' (foreknowledge) as a technical term distinct from 'praedestinatio' (predestination). He argues that foreknowledge merely observes human actions, while predestination assigns rewards or punishments based on those actions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praedestinatio","severity":"info","text":"For Faustus, 'praedestinatio' is a judicial act of God that follows foreknowledge. It pertains to justice and decrees rewards or punishments only after foreknowledge has investigated human merits.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"oculi autem uicem praescientiae uirtus exercet","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses the analogy of eyes to illustrate foreknowledge: eyes see external actions but do not cause them. This reflects his anti-Pelagian and semi-Pelagian stance, arguing that God's foreknowledge does not imply causation of human sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"III. QVIA ALIUD EST PRAESCIRE, ALIUD PRAEDESTINARE","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the third chapter of Faustus's treatise, as indicated by the Roman numeral. The heading introduces the central distinction between foreknowledge and predestination, which Faustus develops through a series of antithetical statements.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Apostolus ait","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's interpretation of Romans 8:29 was contested in the 5th–6th centuries. His distinction between foreknowledge and predestination was later condemned at the Council of Orange (529) for implying that human merit precedes divine grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin phrase 'conformes fieri imaginis filii sui' is a paraphrase of Romans 8:29; the exact Vulgate reading is 'conformes fieri imaginis filii sui' without 'praesciuit et'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Sic et deus ea ante diem hominis praeuidet, quae non a se, sed ab homine facienda sunt. et sicut materia existens efficit, + ut eam oculi acies contempletur, non autem oculus facit, ut res uidenda nascatur, ita et praescientia dei ea, quae de hominis meritis secutura sunt, non ut eueniant exigit, sed euentura praecurrit. et quia sacris eloquiis moris est, ut per adsumptam quamcumque similitudinem asserendae rei aperiant ueritatem, sicut interdum uel grano sinapi uel fermento mulieris euangelicae uel sagenae missae in mare et, quae plura talia sunt, regnum caelorum legimus conparari, ita et nos distinguere cupientes futura instituto genus colligitur praesciendi. quod si praescire conpellere est, qui praeuidet peccatorem, ergo ipse causa peccati est? praescit adulterium deus, ergo ipse ossa et medullas ignibus obsceni furoris inflammat? praescit deus homicidam, numquid ipse bestiales motus perturbatis sensibus suggerit, ipse ad peragendum facinus gladium cruentae mentis exacuit? praescit impium, ergo ipse ad profana sacrificia spiritum dementis instigat? itane quarum rerum ultor est, earum et auctor esse credendus est? et inter haec ad malum perurgere iudicandus est captiuae uoluntatis adsensum, qui nec diabolo conpellere permisit inuitum? uoluntas est, quae operatur delictum, uoluntas est, quae meretur auxilium.","english":"Thus also God foresees, before the day of man, those things which are to be done not by Himself, but by man. And just as existing matter brings it about that the keenness of the eyes beholds it, but the eye does not cause the thing to be seen to come into being, so too the prescience of God does not demand that those things which are to follow from man’s merits should happen, but it runs ahead of the things that will happen. And because it is the custom of sacred Scriptures, by means of whatever simile is taken up, to open the truth of the matter to be asserted—just as sometimes we read the kingdom of heaven compared either to a grain of mustard, or to the leaven of the woman in the Gospel, or to a net cast into the sea, and many such things—so too we, wishing to distinguish future things, gather that the kind of foreknowing is instituted. For if to foreknow is to compel, then he who foresees the sinner is himself the cause of the sin? Does God foresee adultery? Then does He Himself inflame the bones and marrows with the fires of obscene frenzy? Does God foresee the murderer? Does He Himself then suggest bestial motions to disturbed minds, does He Himself sharpen the sword of the bloody mind for the perpetration of the crime? Does He foresee the impious man? Does He then instigate the spirit of the madman to profane sacrifices? Is it to be believed that He is the author of those things of which He is the avenger? And amid these things, is He to be judged as pressing the assent of the captive will to evil, He who did not permit even the devil to compel the unwilling? It is the will that works the offense; it is the will that merits the help.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"praeuidet","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that God's foreknowledge does not cause human actions, using the analogy of the eye and existing matter to illustrate that prescience precedes but does not compel events.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"grano sinapi uel fermento mulieris euangelicae uel sagenae missae in mare","severity":"info","text":"Faustus references similes from Scripture: the grain of mustard (Matthew 13:31), the leaven of the woman (Matthew 13:33), and the net cast into the sea (Matthew 13:47), all used to illustrate the kingdom of heaven.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"nec diabolo conpellere permisit inuitum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus asserts that even the devil cannot compel the unwilling, reflecting a semi-Pelagian view that human will retains freedom and responsibility, a key point in the controversy with Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"et inter haec ad malum perurgere iudicandus est captiuae uoluntatis adsensum","severity":"info","text":"This passage forms a rhetorical climax, using a series of rhetorical questions to reject the idea that divine foreknowledge implies divine causation, culminating in a defense of free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'uoluntas' (will) as the agent of both offense and merit, emphasizing human agency in sin and grace, central to his semi-Pelagian argument against predestinarian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin phrase 'instituto genus colligitur praesciendi' is somewhat obscure; it likely means 'the kind of foreknowing is gathered from the instituted (or established) pattern'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"Sed dicis: inuenio ubi sola gratia sine societate humanae uoluntatis operetur, nam in Bethleem omnis innocentium populus tam beatam mortem ex sola dei praedestinatione consequitur. non ita est. nam tum forsitan solius gratiae uerteretur operatio, si innocentis sanguinis non intercessisset effusio. quod si una tunc fuit innocentium causa, cur non omnis illic saluatur infantia? ab illius enim temporis gloria omnis aetas alterius sexus aliena est. si uis praedestinationis specialem per singulos facit conditionem, cur hic omnes pueri diuersis dierum uel mensuum temporibus nati unam obtinent felicitatem? si nero promiscua in genere humano electionis ratio agitur, cur ab hoc munere omnis status puellaris excipitur? hic ergo decreti sorte cessante mors pueris pro diaboli infertur furore, mortis uero beatitudo pro dei honore confertur. non ergo eos praedestinatio morti addixit, sed causae occasio consecrauit. hanc itaque paruulorum interfectionem non dispositio dei, sed impietas ordinauit inimici. deus autem, qui etiam malis hominum bene utitur, perempti gloriam de scelere perimentis operatur. contraria quidem malitiae disponit inuentor, sed bonitatis auctor in melius consilia aduersa conponit.","english":"But you say: I find where grace alone, without the partnership of human will, operates; for in Bethlehem the whole multitude of infants attains so blessed a death solely from divine predestination. It is not so. For then perhaps the operation of grace alone would be at work, if the shedding of innocent blood had not intervened. But if the cause of the infants was then one and the same, why is not every infant saved there? For from the glory of that time, every age of the other sex is excluded. If the special condition of predestination makes a particular case for each individual, why do all the boys, born at different times of days or months, obtain one and the same felicity? But if a promiscuous principle of selection among the human race is at work, why is every female state excluded from this gift? Here, therefore, with the lot of the decree ceasing, death is inflicted on the boys by the fury of the devil, but the blessedness of death is conferred for the honor of God. Thus, predestination did not doom them to death, but the occasion of the cause consecrated them. Therefore, this slaughter of little ones was not ordained by God’s arrangement, but by the impiety of the enemy. But God, who uses even the evils of men well, works the glory of the slain from the crime of the slayers. The contriver of malice indeed arranges contrary things, but the author of goodness composes adverse designs for the better.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed dicis: inuenio ubi sola gratia sine societate humanae uoluntatis operetur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus introduces an objection from a hypothetical opponent, who claims that the Massacre of the Innocents proves grace alone operates without human will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Bethleem omnis innocentium populus","severity":"info","text":"This refers to the Massacre of the Innocents (Matthew 2:16–18), where Herod ordered the killing of male infants in Bethlehem.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"praedestinatio","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'praedestinatio' to denote a divine decree that would predetermine salvation or death, which he here denies as the cause of the infants' fate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"non ita est. nam... si... cur... si uero... cur... hic ergo...","severity":"info","text":"Faustus refutes the objection with a series of rhetorical questions, then concludes that the infants' death was caused by the devil's fury, not divine predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"causae occasio consecrauit","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that the infants were consecrated by the occasion of their martyrdom, not by a prior divine decree, reflecting a semi-Pelagian view that human circumstances and divine grace cooperate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"deus autem, qui etiam malis hominum bene utitur","severity":"info","text":"This echoes a common patristic theme (e.g., Augustine, 'De Civitate Dei' 11.17) that God uses evil for good ends, a point Faustus adapts to counter predestinarian arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'causae occasio' could mean 'the occasion of the cause' or 'the cause of the occasion'; the translation takes it as 'the occasion of the cause' (i.e., the event that provided the cause for consecration)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"IIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT: IN ISTOS MISERICORS EST, QVO8 ADQVIRIT, IN ILLOS IUSTUS EST, QVO8 RELINQVIT, CUM ET CIRCA MALOS MISERICORS ET CIRCA BONOS ETIAM IUSTUS APPAREAT.\n\nSi hominis statum deus, sicut blasphemat impietas, non aequitate sed potestate disponit, ille fortassis, qui pulsauit, excluditur et ille, qui non quaesiuit, adtrahitur. ac sic nec circa saluatos misericors fuisse uidebitur, quibus non dedit, ut ex officio misericordiam mererentur, nec circa perditos aestimari poterit iustus, qui sine proprio crimine a misericordia repelluntur. quod si ambo rei sunt in natura, et in isto iustitia periclitabitur, qui sine merito indignus eligitur, et in illo misericordia, qui perditioni sine peccati iudicio deputatur. qua enim misericordia honoratur otiosus, qua iustitia damnatur innoxius? itaque dum inperite tollit homini libertatem, impie deo probatur negare iustitiam. si dicas, quia tantum misericors in adquisito et solum iustus in perdito est, in utraque persona abrupte negabis utramque uirtutem. nam nec in hoc erit aequitas, si eligat non probatum, nec in illo bonitas, si perdat inmeritum.","english":"IIII. AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY: HE IS MERCIFUL TOWARD THOSE WHOM HE ACQUIRES, JUST TOWARD THOSE WHOM HE LEAVES, WHEN HE APPEARS BOTH MERCIFUL TOWARD THE WICKED AND ALSO JUST TOWARD THE GOOD.\n\nIf God disposes of man’s state, as impiety blasphemes, not by equity but by power, then perhaps the one who knocked is shut out, and the one who did not seek is drawn in. And thus He will not seem to have been merciful toward the saved, to whom He did not give that they might merit mercy by their duty, nor can He be considered just toward the lost, who without their own fault are repelled from mercy. But if both are guilty by nature, then justice will be imperiled in the one who is unworthily chosen without merit, and mercy in the one who is consigned to perdition without judgment of sin. For by what mercy is the idle man honored, by what justice is the innocent man condemned? Therefore, while unskillfully taking away man’s freedom, it is impiously proven to deny justice to God. If you say that He is only merciful in the one acquired and only just in the one lost, in each person you will abruptly deny each virtue. For there will be no equity in this, if He chooses one not proven, nor goodness in that, if He destroys one without merit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"IIII. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading introduces a refutation of a specific claim about God's mercy and justice, structuring the argument as a dialectical response.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"aequitate","severity":"info","text":"Aequitas (equity) is a key term in Faustus's argument, contrasting with potestas (power) to assert that God's actions are governed by fairness, not arbitrary force.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libertatem","severity":"info","text":"Libertas (freedom) here refers to human free will, which Faustus defends against the claim that God's grace operates without human cooperation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"blasphemat impietas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus characterizes the opposing view as impiety (impietas), a rhetorical move common in late antique theological polemic to discredit opponents as blasphemous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"qui pulsauit, excluditur et ille, qui non quaesiuit, adtrahitur","severity":"info","text":"The imagery of knocking and being shut out echoes biblical parables of exclusion and inclusion, such as the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) or the door of salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustus of Riez","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in the 5th-6th century controversy over semi-Pelagianism, where Faustus's defense of free will was later criticized by figures like Prosper of Aquitaine.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Prosper of Aquitaine"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'in isto' and 'in illo' are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the saved and lost individuals or to the concepts of justice and mercy; the translation takes them as referring to persons."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"Nos autem geminum hoc in dei operibus bonum inseparabili consertum fatemur amplexu, sicut legimus: misericordiam et iudicium cantabo tibi, domine, et iterum: misericors dominus et iustus et deus noster miserebitur, et iterum: misericors et miserator et iustus dominus. nam misericors est et in perditos, qui inquirit et inuitat errantes, qui diu sustinet delinquentes. et sicut solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos, ita utrosque indifferenter lumine rationis inpleuit, honore imaginis suae induit, ad gratiam redemptionis generaliter euocauit. itane misericors in illo non fuit, in quem tanta congessit, quem de neglecta et perdita misericordia iudicabit? iam illud minoris negotii est, ut erga adquisitos sicut misericordem ita iustum esse doceamus. iustus, inquam, et circa eos, quos suscipit reuertentes, quos non deserit laborantes, quos dignos efficit libertate fideliter seruientes. haereticus autem ideo circa malos negat misericordem, quia non credit oblatam fuisse salutis copiam his, qui delabuntur in mortem. ideo circa bonos non asserit iustum, quia nihil eis aestimat pro humili deuotione conlatum. misericors ergo est, quia et malis ingerit rationis intellectum et bonitatis affectum, iustus, quia oboedienti proponit praemium, iustus, quia nullum saluat inuitum.","english":"But we confess this twofold good in the works of God, joined in an inseparable embrace, as we read: “I will sing of mercy and judgment to you, O Lord,” and again: “The Lord is merciful and just, and our God will have mercy,” and again: “The Lord is merciful and compassionate and just.” For He is merciful even toward the lost, who seeks out and invites the erring, who long endures the delinquent. And just as He makes His sun rise over good and bad alike and rains upon the just and the unjust, so He has indifferently filled both with the light of reason, clothed them with the honor of His image, and generally summoned them to the grace of redemption. Was He not merciful toward the one on whom He heaped so much, whom He will judge from neglected and lost mercy? That is already a lesser matter, that we teach Him to be as just as He is merciful toward those He acquires. He is just, I say, also toward those whom He receives when they return, whom He does not abandon when they struggle, whom He makes worthy of freedom by faithfully serving. The heretic, however, denies that He is merciful toward the wicked because he does not believe that the opportunity of salvation was offered to those who fall into death. For the same reason, he does not assert that He is just toward the good, because he thinks nothing was conferred upon them for humble devotion. Therefore, He is merciful, because He instills in the wicked both the understanding of reason and the affection for goodness; He is just, because He sets a reward before the obedient; He is just, because He saves no one unwilling.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"misericordiam et iudicium cantabo tibi, domine","severity":"info","text":"The first biblical citation is not a direct Vulgate verse but likely a conflation of Psalm 101:1 (Vulgate 100:1) and themes of mercy and judgment. Faustus adapts the psalmist's language to his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"misericors dominus et iustus et deus noster miserebitur","severity":"info","text":"The second citation echoes Psalm 116:1 (Vulgate 115:1) and Psalm 62:2 (Vulgate 61:2), combining attributes of mercy and justice. Faustus uses these to support his claim that God is both merciful and just toward all.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"misericors et miserator et iustus dominus","severity":"info","text":"The third citation resembles Psalm 112:1 (Vulgate 111:1) and Psalm 103:8 (Vulgate 102:8), emphasizing God's mercy and justice. Faustus assembles these to counter the heretic's denial of God's mercy to the wicked.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haereticus","severity":"info","text":"The 'heretic' likely refers to proponents of a deterministic view of grace, possibly associated with the teachings of John Cassian or semi-Pelagian positions. Faustus argues against those who deny God's mercy to the wicked and justice to the good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"geminum hoc in dei operibus bonum","severity":"info","text":"The 'twofold good' refers to mercy and justice as inseparable attributes of God's actions. Faustus insists they are conjoined, countering the heretical view that God is only merciful to the acquired and just to the abandoned.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"nos autem ... fatemur ... sicut legimus ... nam ... itane ... iam illud ... haereticus autem ... ergo","severity":"info","text":"Faustus structures the passage as a series of affirmations and refutations: he confesses the twofold good, cites scripture, explains God's mercy to the lost, then contrasts the heretic's denial, concluding with a restatement of God's mercy and justice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical sources for the citations are not verbatim from the Vulgate; Faustus may be paraphrasing or combining verses. The identity of the 'heretic' is not specified but is contextually a semi-Pelagian opponent."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Itaque apostolus magnifice ad donum gratiae officium laboris adiungit ita dicens: laborantem agricolam oportet de fructibus accipere. ecce quomodo sibi admirabili commercio diuina et humana sociantur. ad oboedientiam pertinet labor, fructus uero laboris ad gratiam. et iterum: unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem, cum dominus in euangelio dicat: cum feceritis haec, dicite: serui inutiles, quod debuimus facere, fecimus. aduerte, quia non excludit operis studium, sed operantis requirit obsequium, nec laborem seruitutis recusat, sed humilitatem mentis insinuat. uitium ergo, quod laborem inperitissime refugiendum putas, non in opere, sed in corde consistit. totis ergo uiribus laborabo, sed quidquid de superna largitate percepero, gratiae, non industriae deputabo, beneficium uocabo, non pretium, donum testabor esse, non debitum, remunerationem, non retributionem. ita cum ex officio aliquid agimus, nequaquam nos inputare deo possumus, quia soluimus, quod debemus. tu uero diuinae ne inuideas bonitati, si opus, quod a me illa adiuuante bene gestum est, uel etiam accepta perdiderim. hoc genere nec conuerti eos permittunt mala praecedentia nec sanari.","english":"Thus the Apostle magnificently joins the duty of labor to the gift of grace, saying: \"The laboring farmer ought to receive from the fruits.\" Behold how divine and human things are united in a wonderful exchange. Labor pertains to obedience, but the fruit of labor to grace. And again: \"Each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor,\" while the Lord says in the Gospel: \"When you have done these things, say: 'Unworthy servants, we have done what we ought to do.'\" Note that he does not exclude the zeal of the work, but requires the obedience of the worker; he does not refuse the labor of servitude, but suggests the humility of the mind. Therefore, the vice which you think must be most ignorantly avoided in labor does not consist in the work, but in the heart. Therefore, I will labor with all my strength, but whatever I receive from heavenly bounty, I will attribute to grace, not to industry; I will call it a benefit, not a price; I will testify that it is a gift, not a debt; a remuneration, not a retribution. Thus, when we do something out of duty, we can by no means impute it to God, because we are paying what we owe. But you, do not begrudge divine goodness, if the work which, with its help, I have done well, or even if I have lost what I received. In this manner, they do not allow those who are converted by preceding evils to be healed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"laborantem agricolam oportet de fructibus accipere","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 9:17 or a similar agricultural metaphor; the exact source is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem","severity":"info","text":"Likely an echo of 1 Corinthians 3:8 or Matthew 16:27, though not verbatim; Faustus adapts the language to his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cum feceritis haec, dicite: serui inutiles, quod debuimus facere, fecimus","severity":"info","text":"A loose paraphrase of a Gospel saying, possibly Luke 17:10 or a similar passage; the exact source is not identified in the edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiae","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes gratia (grace) from industria (industry), beneficium (benefit) from pretium (price), donum (gift) from debitum (debt), and remuneratio (remuneration) from retributio (retribution), emphasizing grace as free gift.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustus of Riez","severity":"info","text":"Faustus (5th c.) was a semi-Pelagian bishop; this passage defends cooperation of human labor with divine grace against extreme predestinarian views, a key controversy in late Gallic Christianity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Itaque ... et iterum ... aduerte ... ergo ... ita ... tu uero","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from scriptural citation to exegesis, then to a direct address ('tu uero') opposing an interlocutor, typical of Faustus's rhetorical style in this treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scriptural citations are paraphrastic and their exact sources are not identified in the edition; the reading assumes they are adapted from Pauline and Gospel traditions.","The phrase 'accepta perdiderim' is ambiguous: it may mean 'lost what I received' or 'lost the accepted (work)'; the translation takes it as 'lost what I received'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"V. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT: NON TAM UOLUIT QVAM NON POTUIT SALUUS ESSE, QVI PERIIT, IUXTA QVOD LEGIMUS: ET NON POTERANT CREDERE.\n\nInter haec cum Iohannes euangelista commemoret: propterea non poterant credere, quia iterum dixit Esaias: excaecauit oculos eorum et indurauit eorum cor, hoc loco elocutio conclusa sic resonat, quasi eis non credendi necessitas inponi uideatur inuitis. sed ex illis causam uel culpam incredulitatis exortam in consequentibus lectionis ordo manifestat ita dicens: uerum tamen et ex principibus multi crediderunt in eum, sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur, ut de synagoga non eicerentur. dilexerunt enim gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam dei. absolute hic indicat, sicut et de Simone legimus, etiam infidelibus uim credulitatis fuisse conlatam, quibus, sicut facultas credendi adfuit, ita uoluntas defuit confitendi. quod credunt, gratiae largitas est, quod professionem creditis non accommodant, mentis inprobitas est et inpletur in eis: qui autem non habet, etiam quod habet auferetur ab eo.","english":"V. AGAINST THIS, WHICH THEY SAY: NOT SO MUCH HE WAS UNWILLING AS HE WAS UNABLE TO BE SAVED, WHO PERISHED, ACCORDING TO WHAT WE READ: AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO BELIEVE.\n\nAmong these things, when the evangelist John records: for this reason they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: he blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, in this place the expression, thus concluded, sounds as if a necessity of not believing seems to be imposed upon the unwilling. But the order of the reading in the following passages makes clear the cause or fault of unbelief having arisen from those things, saying thus: nevertheless, even many of the leaders believed in him, but on account of the Pharisees they did not confess, so that they would not be cast out of the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. Here he indicates absolutely, as we also read concerning Simon, that the power of belief was conferred even upon the unfaithful, to whom, just as the capacity for believing was present, so the will for confessing was lacking. That they believe is the generosity of grace; that they do not accommodate the profession of what is believed is the dishonesty of the mind, and it is fulfilled in them: he who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"V. CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the fifth section of the treatise, marked by a Roman numeral and a heading that introduces a counter-argument against an opposing view.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"propterea non poterant credere, quia iterum dixit Esaias: excaecauit oculos eorum et indurauit eorum cor","severity":"info","text":"Faustus conflates John 12:39-40, which cites Isaiah, with the prophet's words about blinding and hardening; the exact phrase is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uerum tamen et ex principibus multi crediderunt in eum, sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 12:42, where the evangelist notes that many leaders believed but feared the Pharisees; Faustus uses it to argue that belief was possible but confession was withheld.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"qui autem non habet, etiam quod habet auferetur ab eo","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of Matthew 13:12 or a similar proverb; Faustus applies it to those who lack the will to confess, suggesting they lose even the grace of belief.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut et de Simone legimus","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Simon likely alludes to Simon Magus, who according to Acts 8:9-24 believed but later fell into heresy; Faustus uses him as an example of belief without proper confession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntas defuit confitendi","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes between the capacity to believe (facultas credendi) and the will to confess (uoluntas confitendi), a key distinction in his semi-Pelagian argument that grace enables belief but human will is needed for confession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is clear, but the exact biblical references are paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim, leaving some ambiguity about which specific verses Faustus intends."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Ecce quomodo bonum uoluntatis et fidei admixta malitia deprauauit, sicut alio loco in eodem euangelio ipse dominus dicit: quomodo potestis uos credere, qui gloriam ab inuicem accipitis et gloriam, quae a solo est deo, non quaeritis? uides ergo, quia, sicut subpressis causis absconditur ueritas, ita manifestis remouetur obscuritas, quae in Esaiae testimonio densiores paulo nebulas uidetur obducere, dum eos, quos propria nequitia surdos caecosque reddiderat, a deo asserit obcaecatos, ne forte conuerso ad deum corde sanentur. itaque ut paululum differamus, quod Matthaeus apertius elocutus est, iuxta ipsius sermonis rigorem, qui ex uerbis prophetae austerius percutit legentis auditum, altius requiramus, quare hoc loco nolle putetur dominus, ut sanentur, id est, ne momentanea conuersione suscepta conlatis beneficiis abutantur, ira cum probati fuerint suscepta neglexisse ac respuisse recidiua infirmitate medicinam, sicut ille, ad quem ipse dominus loquitur: iam sanus factus es, noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat.","english":"See how the good of will and faith, when mixed with malice, corrupted it, just as in another place in the same Gospel the Lord himself says: How can you believe, you who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that is from God alone? You see, therefore, that, just as when causes are suppressed the truth is hidden, so when they are made manifest the obscurity is removed, which in the testimony of Isaiah seems to draw somewhat denser clouds, while it asserts that those whom their own wickedness had rendered deaf and blind were blinded by God, lest, with their heart turned to God, they be healed. And so, to defer a little what Matthew has expressed more clearly, according to the very rigor of the speech, which from the words of the prophet strikes the reader's ear more harshly, let us inquire more deeply why in this place the Lord is thought to be unwilling that they be healed, that is, lest, having taken up a momentary conversion, they abuse the benefits conferred, when, having been tested, they are found to have neglected and spurned what they received, with a relapsing weakness, the medicine, just as the one to whom the Lord himself speaks: You have now been made well, do not sin, lest something worse happen to you.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quomodo potestis uos credere, qui gloriam ab inuicem accipitis et gloriam, quae a solo est deo, non quaeritis?","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of Jesus’ words, likely from John’s Gospel, echoing themes of glory from God alone (cf. John 5:44; 12:43).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iam sanus factus es, noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Jesus’ warning, possibly from John 5:14 or a similar admonition in the Gospels, not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Esaiae testimonio","severity":"info","text":"Faustus refers to Isaiah’s testimony (likely Isa 6:10 or 29:9-10) about God blinding and hardening, a key text in the semi-Pelagian controversy over divine predestination and human free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"nolle","severity":"info","text":"The verb nolle (to be unwilling) is central to Faustus’ argument: he denies that God is unwilling to heal, but rather that God withholds healing to prevent abuse of grace, a key distinction in his anti-predestinarian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"itaque ut paululum differamus, quod Matthaeus apertius elocutus est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus signals a deferral of Matthew’s clearer expression, indicating a rhetorical strategy to first address the harsher reading of Isaiah before turning to the Gospel parallel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"densiores paulo nebulas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus’ metaphor of ‘denser clouds’ (nebulas) reflects his exegetical method of clarifying obscurities in Scripture, a common patristic trope, and anticipates his resolution that God’s apparent harshness is pedagogical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical source of the first paraphrase (quomodo potestis…) is uncertain; it may be a conflation of Johannine themes rather than a specific verse.","The identity of the person addressed in the final warning (iam sanus factus es) is unspecified; it may be a generic example or a reference to a specific Gospel figure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"Aduerte bonitate sanitatis impium praegrauari. sic Pharao insultasse deprehenditur misericordiae dei, quem addictus plagarum resipiscentem et conuertentem et humiliantem se, quotiens sanare uoluit, totiens deteriorem esse post humanitatem clementiae deprehendit. quare, inquam, istos sanare dissimulat? ne fiant utique illius similes, qui supra petrosa seminatus est, id est, qui ad momentum cum gaudio suscipit uerbum, qui ad tempus credit et in tempore temptationis recedit. quid est momentaneam suscipere sanitatem? id est ad tempus credere et in tempore temptationis pro animi infidelitate discedere et ad leuem temptationis aestum infirma radice deficere. uideamus, quos sanare temptauerit et eis parum pro consequenti incredulitate profuerit. ecce seruo illi in euangelio magnis debitis et animae languoribus oppresso decem milia talenta, quae ei remissa uidebantur, per crimen propriae malitiae adiectis cruciatibus exiguntur, ubi et aduertendum est, quomodo adquisita perduntur et beneficia iam conlata reuocantur.","english":"Attend to how the goodness of health burdens the impious. Thus Pharaoh is found to have insulted the mercy of God, who, when he was bound by plagues, repenting, converting, and humbling himself, as often as God wished to heal him, so often did he find him worse after the humanity of clemency. Why, I ask, does He refrain from healing these? Lest they become, of course, like that one who was sown on rocky ground, that is, who for a moment receives the word with joy, who believes for a time and in time of temptation withdraws. What is it to receive momentary health? That is, to believe for a time and in time of temptation to depart due to infidelity of spirit and to fail with a weak root at a slight heat of temptation. Let us see whom He attempted to heal and for whom it profited little due to subsequent unbelief. Behold, for that servant in the Gospel, oppressed by great debts and languors of the soul, the ten thousand talents which seemed to have been remitted to him are exacted with added torments through the crime of his own malice, where it must also be noted how acquired things are lost and benefits already conferred are revoked.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"supra petrosa seminatus est","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:3–8; Mark 4:3–8; Luke 8:5–8), where seed on rocky ground fails to take root. Faustus applies it to those who believe only temporarily.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"seruo illi in euangelio magnis debitis","severity":"info","text":"The servant with ten thousand talents likely alludes to the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23–35) or a similar Gospel narrative, though the specific detail of ten thousand talents is not canonical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pharao","severity":"info","text":"Faustus refers to the Exodus narrative (Exodus 7–14) where Pharaoh repeatedly relents under plagues but then hardens his heart, illustrating the failure of temporary repentance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"momentaneam suscipere sanitatem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'momentary health' is a metaphor for temporary faith or conversion, central to Faustus's argument that grace must be enduring, not fleeting.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"uideamus, quos sanare temptauerit","severity":"info","text":"This transitional phrase introduces an exemplum (the servant in the Gospel), a common rhetorical device in patristic treatises to illustrate a theological point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"decem milia talenta","severity":"caution","text":"The figure 'ten thousand talents' is not directly from the canonical Gospels; it may be a conflation or a reference to a non-canonical tradition, or a rhetorical exaggeration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'servant' with ten thousand talents is unclear; it may conflate several Gospel parables or refer to a lost source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"Sed et ille depulso a se inmundo spiritu ad tempus legitur fuisse sanatus, de quo dicit sermo diuinus: cum autem inmundus spiritus exierit ab homine, perambulat per loca arida quaerens requiem et non inueniens. tunc dicit: reuertar in domum meam, unde exiui. et ueniens inuenit uacantem, scopis mundatam et ornatam, id est uacuatam uirtutibus et uanitatibus adimpletam. tunc uadit et adsumit septem alios spiritus nequiores se, et intrantes habitant ibi et fiunt nouissima hominis illius peiora prioribus. ecce cui sanitatem conlatam esse non profuit, in quem multiplicatis malis nociuus languor incubuit et increuit. sed et alio loco is, qui post acceptam notitiam ueritatis, id est post conlatam ueritate sibi curam salutis sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerat, in quo sanctificatus est, id est in quo sanatus est, grauiora mereri supplicia apostolo adtestante perhibetur. sic itaque gratia in culpam uertitur, nisi custodia subsequatur. sed in his euangelista Matthaeus dum incrassatum cor, obturatas aures clausosque oculos ad culpam hominis refert, cur non sanarentur, apertiore sensu et dilucidata ratione perdocuit, dum, inquam, dicit: incrassatum est cor populi huius et auribus grauiter audierunt et oculos suos clauserunt.","english":"But also that man from whom the unclean spirit was driven out for a time is read to have been healed, concerning whom the divine word says: when the unclean spirit has gone out from a man, it wanders through dry places seeking rest and finding none. Then it says: I will return to my house, whence I came out. And coming, it finds it vacant, swept with brooms and adorned, that is, emptied of virtues and filled with vanities. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and entering, they dwell there, and the last state of that man becomes worse than the former. Behold, to whom the granting of health was of no benefit, upon whom, with multiplied evils, a harmful sickness settled and grew. But also in another place, he who, after receiving knowledge of the truth, that is, after the cure of health was conferred upon him by the truth, had polluted the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, that is, in which he was healed, is shown by the testimony of the apostle to deserve more severe punishments. Thus grace turns into guilt, unless guardianship follows. But in these matters, the evangelist Matthew, while he refers the hardened heart, the stopped-up ears, and the closed eyes to the fault of man, as to why they were not healed, taught with clearer sense and clarified reasoning, when, I say, he says: The heart of this people has become hardened, and they heard heavily with their ears, and they closed their eyes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cum autem inmundus spiritus exierit ab homine...","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts a parable-like narrative from the Gospel of Matthew (12:43-45) about the returning unclean spirit, but the wording is not a direct Vulgate citation; it reflects a common patristic elaboration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"incrassatum est cor populi huius...","severity":"info","text":"The closing quotation echoes Matthew 13:15 (Vulgate: 'incrassatum est cor populi huius'), though the verse is not exact; Faustus uses it to argue that human fault, not divine refusal, explains lack of healing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia in culpam uertitur","severity":"info","text":"This phrase encapsulates Faustus's anti-Pelagian argument: grace, if not followed by human guardianship (custodia), becomes guilt. It is a key theological claim in the treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sanguinem testamenti pollutum","severity":"info","text":"The 'blood of the covenant' likely refers to the Eucharist, polluted by sin after receiving knowledge of truth. This reflects Faustus's concern with post-baptismal sin and the need for continued vigilance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from an exemplum (the healed man repossessed) to a scriptural proof (Matthew) and a doctrinal maxim ('gratia in culpam uertitur'), forming a three-part argument against the idea that grace alone suffices.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"scopis mundatam et ornatam","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'swept with brooms and adorned' is a vivid but non-biblical addition; it may reflect a lost homiletic tradition or Faustus's own rhetorical expansion. The source of this imagery is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'that man' from whom the unclean spirit is driven is not specified; it may be a generic figure or a reference to a specific biblical character (e.g., the man in Matthew 12:22).","The phrase 'sanguinem testamenti pollutum' could refer to the Eucharist or to the blood of Christ in a broader covenantal sense; the reading here follows the Eucharistic interpretation common in Faustus's context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"nonne tibi uidetur uelut interrogantibus, cur uidentes non uideant et audientes non intellegant, euidentem protinus dedisse rationem de causis, propter quas non uideant neque intellegant? quia audire et uidere, id est intellegere et oboedire noluerunt. quia, inquit, non omnes oboediunt euangelio, quia tota die expandit manus suas ad populum non credentem et contradicentem, sicut etiam per se iam dominus loquitur: filios genui et exaltaui, ipsi autem me spreuerunt, et iterum: quoniam dereliquerunt uenam aquarum uiuentium dominum, et in actibus apostolorum: uidentes, inquit, turbas Iudaei repleti sunt zelo et contradicebant his, quae a Paulo dicebantur, blasphemantes uiam domini, et item: instabat, inquit, uerbo Paulus testificans Iudaeis esse Christum Iesum. contradicentibus autem illis et blasphemantibus excutiens uestimenta sua dixit: sanguis uester super caput uestrum erit, mundus ego ex hoc iam ad gentes uadam. contradicentibus, inquit, illis et blasphemantibus. uide, quomodo remedia ingerit medicus et recusat aegrotus. quorum duritiam etiam beatus Stephanus pari auctoritate increpat dicens: incircumcisi corde et auribus, uos semper spiritui sancto restitistis. ecce quare uidere non possunt: quia spiritui sancto resistunt atque a se clausis sponte oculis lumen ueritatis excludunt.","english":"Does it not seem to you that, as if to those asking why those who see do not see and those who hear do not understand, he forthwith gave an evident explanation of the causes on account of which they neither see nor understand? Because they were unwilling to hear and to see, that is, to understand and to obey. Because, he says, not all obey the gospel, because all day long he spreads out his hands to a people not believing and contradicting, just as also the Lord himself already speaks through himself: I have begotten sons and raised them up, but they themselves have spurned me, and again: because they have abandoned the vein of living waters, the Lord, and in the Acts of the Apostles: Seeing, he says, the crowds, the Jews were filled with zeal and contradicted those things which were being said by Paul, blaspheming the way of the Lord, and likewise: Paul, he says, was insisting with his word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But with them contradicting and blaspheming, shaking out his garments he said: Your blood will be upon your head, I, clean from this, will now go to the Gentiles. With them contradicting, he says, and blaspheming. See how the physician applies remedies and the sick man refuses. Whose hardness even the blessed Stephen rebukes with equal authority, saying: Uncircumcised in heart and ears, you have always resisted the Holy Spirit. Behold why they cannot see: because they resist the Holy Spirit and, with eyes voluntarily closed to themselves, they shut out the light of truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"filios genui et exaltaui, ipsi autem me spreuerunt","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of Old Testament prophetic language, possibly echoing Isaiah 1:2 or similar passages of filial rebellion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dereliquerunt uenam aquarum uiuentium dominum","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Jeremiah 2:13 or 17:13, where Israel abandons the Lord as a source of living water, a common patristic image for rejecting divine grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uidentes ... turbas Iudaei repleti sunt zelo et contradicebant ... blasphemantes uiam domini","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose paraphrase of Acts 13:45, where Jews in Pisidian Antioch contradict Paul; the Latin adds 'blaspheming the way of the Lord' as an intensification.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sanguis uester super caput uestrum erit, mundus ego ex hoc iam ad gentes uadam","severity":"info","text":"This is not in the canonical Acts; it may be a variant reading or a conflation of Acts 13:46 and 18:6, reflecting a tradition of Paul's dramatic gesture.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"incircumcisi corde et auribus, uos semper spiritui sancto restitistis","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct quotation from Acts 7 but a paraphrase of Stephen's speech (Acts 7:51-53), emphasizing resistance to the Holy Spirit as a cause of blindness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"non omnes oboediunt euangelio, quia tota die expandit manus suas ad populum non credentem et contradicentem","severity":"info","text":"The image of Christ spreading his hands all day to an unbelieving people is a patristic trope for the universal offer of grace, found in Augustine and Leo the Great.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the phrase 'filios genui et exaltaui' is uncertain; it may be a free composition by Faustus rather than a direct scriptural citation.","The Acts paraphrase 'sanguis uester super caput uestrum erit' does not match any known manuscript of Acts, suggesting a textual variant or authorial invention."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"quod ergo in euangelio sequitur et dicit: ne forte oculis uideant et auribus audiant et corde intellegant et conuertantur et sanem eos, ne possint conuerti atque sanari, obdurati cordis uitium et poena peccati est. ne, inquit, conuertantur et sanem eos. non hic sanitatem uolentibus denegat, sed contradicentes se sanare nolle, id est non debere pronuntiat. ad conferendum remedium promptissima est bonitas medici, sed intemperantia contradicit infirmi. nam qui ita intellegendum putat, quod eos sanare noluerit, absoluit hominem et damnat auctorem. nullus ergo excluditur a beneficiis dei, qui primum de neglectis beneficiis iudicandus est.\n\nVI. QVID SIT, QVOD AIT: CUM HNIM NONDUM EGISSENT BONI ALIQVID AUT MALI.\n\nIllum uero apostoli sensum intra gentilis decreti artare conantur angustias, quo dicit: promissionis, inquit, uerbum hoc est: secundum hoc tempus ueniam et erit Sarae filius, non solum autem, sed Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens Isaac patrem nostrum. cum enim nondum nati fuissent aut aliquid egissent boni aut mali, ut secundum electionem propositum dei maneret, non ex operibus, sed ex uocante dictum est, quia maior seruiet minori, sicut scriptum est: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui.","english":"Therefore, what follows in the Gospel and says: \"lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted and I heal them,\" that they might not be able to be converted and healed, is the vice of a hardened heart and the punishment of sin. \"Lest,\" he says, \"they be converted and I heal them.\" Here he does not deny healing to those who are willing, but declares that he is unwilling to heal those who resist, that is, that he ought not. The physician's goodness is most ready to apply the remedy, but the intemperance of the sick man opposes it. For whoever thinks that it is to be understood that he was unwilling to heal them absolves man and condemns the author. Therefore no one is excluded from the benefits of God who must first be judged concerning neglected benefits.\n\nVI. WHAT IT MEANS WHEN HE SAYS: \"WHEN THEY HAD NOT YET DONE ANYTHING GOOD OR EVIL.\"\n\nBut they attempt to confine that meaning of the apostle within the narrows of a Gentile decree, where he says: \"This is a word of promise: according to this time I will come and there will be a son of Sarah, and not only that, but Rebecca, from one conception, having Isaac our father.\" For when they had not yet been born or done anything good or evil, so that according to election the purpose of God might remain, it was said not from works but from the one calling, because the greater will serve the lesser, as it is written: \"I have loved Jacob, but I have held Esau in hatred.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ne forte oculis uideant et auribus audiant et corde intellegant et conuertantur et sanem eos","severity":"info","text":"Faustus interprets this Gospel phrase as describing the vice of a hardened heart and the punishment of sin, not as a denial of healing to the willing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ne forte oculis uideant et auribus audiant et corde intellegant et conuertantur et sanem eos","severity":"info","text":"The Latin echoes a Gospel passage, likely from Matthew or Luke, where Jesus warns of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"absoluit hominem et damnat auctorem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus counters a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian reading that would absolve human sinfulness and blame God, a key issue in the 5th-century grace controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VI. QVID SIT, QVOD AIT: CUM HNIM NONDUM EGISSENT BONI ALIQVID AUT MALI","severity":"info","text":"A new section heading introduces a discussion of a Pauline passage about divine election before human actions, contrasting with the preceding Gospel exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui","severity":"info","text":"This citation from Malachi 1:2-3 (LXX) is used by Faustus to illustrate predestination based on divine choice, not human merit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"CUM HNIM NONDUM EGISSENT BONI ALIQVID AUT MALI","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains a corruption: 'HNIM' is likely a scribal error for 'NIHIL' or 'NONDUM' is redundant; the sense is 'when they had not yet done anything good or evil'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact Gospel verse quoted is not identified; the phrase 'ne forte...' may be a conflation or paraphrase.","The reference to a 'Gentile decree' is unclear; possibly a misreading of a patristic source or a lost text."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"in his uerbis hoc uult intellegi gentiliciae persuasionis impietas, quod deus absque ullo inter malum et bonum moderatoris examine non ordine regentis, sed iure dominantis illum affectu dignum reddat, hunc odio, illum recipiat studio, hunc excludat imperio, et inter duos perditos nulla consideratio laboris, nulla deuotionis habeatur, sed unus sine ratione cessantibus officiis adsumatur, alter sine discretione damnetur. ac sic dum in alterutro nec meriti existit materia nec delicti, aufertur omnino futuri causa iudicii.\n\nQuod si haec rerum tam indigna confusio etiam a sensu humanae mentis aliena est, sollicitius requiramus, quid diuinae conueniat apostolo disserente iustitiae. inter duos populos constitutus Iudaeorum doctor et gentium dum ita ait: quia maior seruiet minori, in* seniore Iudaeae arrogantia reprobatur, in iuniore fides gentilis eligitur. itaque ipse sibi obducit ignorantiae nebulas, qui non tam scripturis sanctis sequaci sensu se accommodat, quam scripturas sanctas ad intellectum suum uiolenter adtrahere et praesumptiue nititur applicare et id sibi pro captu suo omissa praecedentium uel sequentium ratione persuadet, unde penitus loqui apostolus non instituit. quod si ad capituli ipsius, de quo agitur, recurras exordium, omne absque ulla difficultate declinabis ambiguum.","english":"In these words he wishes to be understood the impiety of gentile persuasion, that God, without any examination of a moderator between evil and good, not by the order of a ruler, but by the right of a master, renders one worthy of affection, another of hatred, one he receives with zeal, another he excludes by command, and between two lost men no consideration of labor, no devotion is held, but one without reason, with duties ceasing, is taken up, the other without discrimination is condemned. And thus, while in either one neither the substance of merit nor of fault exists, the cause of future judgment is altogether removed.\n\nBut if this so unworthy confusion is also alien to the sense of the human mind, let us more carefully inquire what is fitting to divine justice, with the apostle discoursing. Placed between two peoples, the teacher of the Jews and of the Gentiles, when he says thus: \"Because the greater will serve the lesser,\" in the elder the arrogance of Judea is reproved, in the younger the faith of the Gentile is chosen. Therefore, he draws upon himself the clouds of ignorance who does not so much accommodate himself with a following sense to the holy scriptures, as violently and presumptuously strives to drag and apply the holy scriptures to his own understanding, and persuades himself, according to his own capacity, with the reason of preceding or following matters omitted, from which the apostle did not at all intend to speak. But if you recur to the beginning of the very chapter which is in question, you will avoid all ambiguity without any difficulty.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"gentiliciae persuasionis impietas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus characterizes the opposing view as 'the impiety of gentile persuasion,' likely a polemical label for a deterministic or predestinarian position he associates with pagan fatalism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"moderatoris","severity":"info","text":"The term 'moderator' (moderatoris) here denotes a balanced judge, contrasting with a 'master' (dominantis) who rules by arbitrary will. This distinction is central to Faustus's argument for divine justice as orderly governance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quia maior seruiet minori","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'because the greater will serve the lesser' is not a direct biblical quotation but likely a paraphrase or allusion, possibly to a Pauline argument about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles (cf. Romans or Galatians).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Iudaeae arrogantia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts 'the arrogance of Judea' with 'the faith of the Gentile,' reflecting a common patristic trope that the Jewish people were superseded by the Gentile church, a theme in anti-Pelagian polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ac sic dum in alterutro nec meriti existit materia nec delicti","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the first paragraph by stating that if neither merit nor fault exists, the basis for future judgment is removed, a logical climax to Faustus's critique of the opposing view.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"in* seniore Iudaeae arrogantia reprobatur","severity":"caution","text":"The asterisk in 'in*' may indicate a textual crux or editorial mark in the source edition; the reading is uncertain, but the sense is clear: the elder (Judaism) is reproved, the younger (Gentile faith) chosen.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical source of 'quia maior seruiet minori' is unclear; it may be a loose paraphrase rather than a direct citation.","The phrase 'in* seniore' contains a textual mark whose significance is not specified in the source edition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"si magister gentium de genesi hominum tractare coepisset et diceret homini totius uitae cursum origine praefinitum et magis necessitati subditum, quam libero arbitrio fuisse commissum eo, quod dominus omnium pro potestatis nutu uiolentoque decreto alios relinqueret ad perditionem, alios eligeret ad salutem, tunc forsitan uelut per lineas decurrentes colorem hunc iniqua persuasio posset asserere. cum uero apostolus promissiones dei et uocationem gentium altius repetitis texat exemplis et Iudaeorum praesumptionem omni modo conprimere studeat, qui inprobe de legis operibus intumescebant, non in origine seniorum Ismahele uel Esau decretum fatale constituit, sed in benedictione Isaac et Iacob electionem populi iunioris ostendit et propterea minorem maiori non uelut (pro) potentia dei, sed pro iustitia praetulit. perinde enim impietatem Iudaeorum sicut oboedientiam gentium praeuidebat. quia ergo dicit: cum enim nondum egissent boni aliquid aut mali, non ex operibus, sed ex uocante dictum est, quia maior seruiet minori, ex uocante quidem dictum est, non tamen ad conpellendos uel repellendos, sed ad credituros et non credituros dictum esse manifestum est, ut diuina sibi constante iustitia ad hominis pertineat uoluntatem uel rennuere uel obseruare praecepta. cum ergo audis: sed ex uocante dictum est, inuitantem intellege, non cogentem.","english":"If the teacher of the gentiles had begun to treat of the origin of men and had said that the whole course of a man’s life was predetermined from his origin and was entrusted more to necessity than to free will, because the lord of all, by the violent nod of his power and by his violent decree, left some to perdition and chose others for salvation, then perhaps, as if by running lines, this color of unjust persuasion could be asserted. But when the apostle weaves together the promises of God and the calling of the gentiles with examples drawn from higher up, and strives in every way to repress the presumption of the Jews, who were insolently puffed up from the works of the law, he does not establish a fatal decree in the origin of the elders Ishmael or Esau, but shows the election of the younger people in the blessing of Isaac and Jacob, and for that reason he preferred the younger to the elder not as if by the power of God, but by justice. For he foresaw the impiety of the Jews just as he foresaw the obedience of the gentiles. Therefore, because he says: “For when they had not yet done anything good or evil, it was said not from their works but from the one calling, that the younger would serve the elder,” it was indeed said from the one calling, yet it is manifest that it was said not to compel or repel, but to those who would believe and those who would not believe, so that, with divine justice remaining constant, it pertains to the will of man either to reject or to observe the precepts. Therefore, when you hear: “but it was said from the one calling,” understand him as inviting, not compelling.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"si magister gentium ... tractare coepisset","severity":"info","text":"Faustus presents a hypothetical: if Paul had taught predestinarian doctrine, it would resemble the 'unjust persuasion' of the Gentiles. This frames the actual Pauline argument as anti-predestinarian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"maior seruiet minori","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Genesis 25:23 (Jacob and Esau) and Paul's use in Romans 9:12 (LXX). Faustus interprets it as referring to the calling of the younger people, not a fatal decree.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uocante","severity":"info","text":"Faustus glosses 'uocante' (the one calling) as 'invitantem, non cogentem' (inviting, not compelling), emphasizing that divine calling does not coerce but leaves room for human will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Iudaeorum praesumptionem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus refers to Jewish presumption based on the works of the law, a common anti-Jewish trope in patristic literature, used here to contrast with the election of the younger people (Isaac and Jacob).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"cum uero apostolus ... texat","severity":"info","text":"This passage contrasts a hypothetical predestinarian reading of Paul with the actual Pauline argument, which Faustus presents as supporting free will and divine justice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"iniqua persuasio","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's characterization of predestinarian views as 'unjust persuasion' reflects the anti-Augustinian stance of the Semipelagian controversy, in which Faustus was a key figure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ex uocante dictum est' is ambiguous: it could mean 'it was said by the one calling' or 'it was said concerning the one calling.' Faustus takes the former, emphasizing the caller's role as inviter.","The reference to 'lineas decurrentes' (running lines) is obscure; it may be a metaphor for logical deduction or a rhetorical figure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"item dum dicit: non ex operibus, asserit circa eos non legis opera, quae utique nondum aduenerat, sed etiam ante legem diuinae misericordiae ac munificentiae dona uiguisse. non ex operibus, inquit. audis legis opera destrui et tu propterea inepto sensu etiam sub gratiae lege uiuentes alios sine operibus gratiae credis posse saluari, alios etiam cum operibus prohibente naturali nexu et lege fatali ianua salutis excludi. Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui. quomodo hic iuxta praui sensus interpretem circa nondum natos sententia caelestis exseritur? nec reus enim esse potest nondum genitus nec dilectus. nihil enim meretur nondum productus in lucem, sed sicut in futurum adhuc erat eorum reposita conuersatio, ita futura praescientis offensio, futura praenuntiatur electio. nam diuina prouidentia sicut nouit iudicare de gestis, ita adhuc gerendis nescit praeiudicare.","english":"Likewise, when he says: \"not by works,\" he asserts that among them, the works of the Law—which had certainly not yet come—did not prevail, but rather that even before the Law, the gifts of divine mercy and munificence flourished. \"Not by works,\" he says. You hear the works of the Law being destroyed, and yet, because of your inept understanding, you believe that others living under the law of grace can be saved without works of grace, while others, even with works, are excluded from the door of salvation by a natural bond and a fatal law. \"I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.\" How, according to the interpreter of a perverse understanding, is the heavenly judgment pronounced here concerning those not yet born? For one not yet born can be neither guilty nor beloved. He merits nothing who has not yet been brought into the light; but just as their future conduct was still to be determined, so the future offense known beforehand, the future election is foretold. For divine providence, as it knows how to judge deeds already done, so it does not know how to prejudge deeds still to be done.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui","severity":"info","text":"Faustus quotes Malachi 1:2–3 (LXX) or a common Latin version, where God says 'I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.' The citation is used to critique a predestinarian reading of divine choice before birth.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"lege fatali","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'fatal law' (lege fatali) echoes Stoic or astrological determinism, which Faustus associates with his opponents' view of predestination as a coercive necessity overriding free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"non ex operibus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'not by works' likely refers to a proof-text used by predestinarians (e.g., from Romans or Ephesians) to argue that salvation depends on divine election rather than human effort. Faustus counters that it refers to the pre-Mosaic era, not to grace without works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"item dum dicit","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues a polemical sequence where Faustus refutes an opponent's interpretation of a scriptural phrase. The 'item' marks a new argument in a series, linking back to the previous passage's discussion of predestination and free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"praui sensus interpretem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus labels his opponent an 'interpreter of perverse understanding,' a rhetorical move typical of the semi-Pelagian controversy. This reflects the later reception of Faustus as a key figure in the debate against Augustinian predestinarianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nondum aduenerat","severity":"info","text":"The text says 'the Law had not yet come,' but the context is ambiguous: it could refer to the Mosaic Law or to a specific legal framework. The reading here follows the English draft's interpretation as the Mosaic Law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'non ex operibus' is not explicitly identified with a specific biblical verse; it may be a paraphrase of Romans 9:11 or Ephesians 2:8–9. The reading assumes it is a predestinarian proof-text.","The identity of the 'interpreter of perverse understanding' is not named; it may refer to a specific contemporary (e.g., a follower of Augustine) or a generic opponent."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"Nemo itaque putet, quod fratribus nondum natis diuersorum necessitas sit praefixa meritorum, cum hoc post transactam uitae militiam de eis Malachias propheta commemoret et de praeterito eorum statu diuinum proferat manifesta aequitate iudicium: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui. quid mirum est, si iustitia diligat innocentiam et respuat iniquitatem, apud quam etiam futura facta sunt? quod autem minor maiori ex lege praeponitur et Iacob neglecto fratre diligitur, hinc paulo tardioribus obscuritas nascitur, quod prolatum dilectionis uel odii testimonium nondum natis fratribus arbitrantur, dum et euidentes causae, quibus unus displicuerit, alter placuerit, supprimuntur. in his ergo duobus non naturae iura hominibus praefiguntur, sed de fide gentium et infidelitate Iudaeorum iustitiae statuta narrantur. non enim hoc loco iuxta litteram personae specialiter germanorum, sed rerum causae ac mysteria describuntur dicente domino: duae gentes sunt in utero tuo et duo populi de uentre tuo diuidentur. quod si de praefixa lege originis tractaretur, quid opus erat, ut maioris et minoris aetatem, quod ad rem non pertinebat, insereret, nisi quia apud Iudaeorum prosapiam semper in duorum uocatione populorum seniori iunior antefertur.","english":"Let no one therefore think that a necessity of diverse merits was fixed for brothers not yet born, since this is what the prophet Malachi recalls concerning them after the completed service of life, and pronounces a divine judgment with manifest equity about their past state: \"I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.\" What wonder is it, if justice loves innocence and rejects iniquity, before whom even future deeds are present? But that the younger is preferred to the elder by law, and Jacob is loved while his brother is neglected, obscurity arises for the somewhat slow-minded from this: that the testimony of love or hatred is thought to refer to brothers not yet born, while the evident reasons why one displeased and the other pleased are suppressed. In these two, therefore, the rights of nature are not fixed for men, but the statutes of justice concerning the faith of the Gentiles and the unfaithfulness of the Jews are narrated. For in this passage, not the persons of the brothers are described literally and specially, but the causes and mysteries of the matters, as the Lord says: \"Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples will be divided from your womb.\" But if it were a question of a fixed law of origin, what need was there to insert the age of the elder and the younger, which was irrelevant to the matter, unless because among the progeny of the Jews the younger is always preferred to the elder in the calling of two peoples?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui","severity":"info","text":"Faustus quotes Malachi 1:2-3, where God says 'I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau,' interpreting it as a divine judgment on past states, not a predestination of unborn brothers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"duae gentes sunt in utero tuo et duo populi de uentre tuo diuidentur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus cites a dominical saying (likely from Genesis 25:23, the oracle to Rebekah) to allegorize Jacob and Esau as types of two nations or peoples, not individual persons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Malachias propheta","severity":"info","text":"Malachi is the last of the twelve minor prophets in the Old Testament; Faustus uses his prophecy to argue that God's love or hate is based on past merits, not predetermined nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"iura naturae","severity":"info","text":"'Rights of nature' here refers to the idea of inherent, fixed merits or destinies based on birth order or origin, which Faustus denies in favor of moral causes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"narrantur","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'narrantur' (are narrated) signals that Faustus reads the Malachi passage as a narrative of divine justice, not a prescriptive law of predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hinc paulo tardioribus obscuritas nascitur","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus acknowledges that the allegorical interpretation may cause confusion for slower minds, indicating a rhetorical strategy to preempt objections from literalist readers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'futura facta sunt' could be read as 'future deeds are present' (divine foreknowledge) or 'future deeds have been done' (predestination); Faustus intends the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":96,"ref":"p96","source":"in qua tamen partium diuersitate multi et de Iudaeis reprobis eliguntur et de electis gentibus reprobantur, ut intellegas in utroque populo iustum iudicem non decretum obseruare, sed merita.\n\nSed dicis: cum adhuc non egissent aliquid boni aut mali, iam praefinitis partibus deputantur. quid mirum si, quorum actus praeuidit, eorum exitus praesignauit, et ideo, sicut eos cursum uiuendi pro arbitrio proprio disposituros esse constabat, ita pro dei potentia praenoscuntur, pro iustitia praeordinantur? hoc totum de eis praedicitur, non praefinitur. in Iacob ergo fidelis populus describitur, in Esau incredulus designatur, de quibus utrisque ita dicit: quid ergo dicemus, quod gentes, quae non sectabantur iustitiam, adprehenderunt iustitiam, iustitiam autem, quae ex fide est, Israel uero sectans legem iustitiae in legem iustitiae non peruenit. quare? quia non ex fide, sed quasi ex operibus. offenderunt enim in lapidem offensionis. dum dicitur: non ex operibus, uides, quia legis opera destruuntur et quod gentibus oboedientia uiam aperuit ad misericordiam, Iudaeis uero praecedens iniquitas et incredulitas praeparauit offensam. non ex operibus, inquit, sed ex uocante dictum est. non illos dicit propriis operibus uacuos, sed negat ex operibus legis fuisse saluatos.","english":"In this diversity of parts, however, many from among the reprobate Jews are chosen, and many from among the elect Gentiles are rejected, so that you may understand that in both peoples the just judge observes not a decree, but merits.\n\nBut you say: when they had not yet done anything good or evil, they were already assigned to predetermined parts. What wonder is it if, since He foresaw their actions, He also prefigured their outcomes, and therefore, just as it was certain that they would arrange their course of living according to their own will, so by the power of God they are foreknown, and by His justice they are preordained? All this is predicted concerning them, not predetermined. Therefore, in Jacob the faithful people are described, in Esau the unbelieving people are designated, concerning both of whom it is said: What then shall we say, that the Gentiles, who did not pursue justice, seized justice—but the justice that comes from faith—while Israel, pursuing the law of justice, did not attain the justice of the law? Why? Because not from faith, but as if from works. For they stumbled upon the stone of offense. When it is said: not from works, you see that the works of the law are destroyed, and that obedience opened the way to mercy for the Gentiles, while for the Jews, preceding iniquity and unbelief prepared the offense. Not from works, he says, but from the one calling, it was said. He does not say that they were empty of their own works, but he denies that they were saved by the works of the law.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the argument against predestinarianism, shifting from a general principle to a specific objection and its rebuttal, then to an exegesis of Jacob and Esau as types.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Iacob ... Esau","severity":"info","text":"The typology of Jacob and Esau as representing the faithful and unbelieving peoples is drawn from Malachi 1:2-3, where God says 'I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau,' a key prooftext in the predestinarian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praefinitur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes 'praedicitur' (predicted) from 'praefinitur' (predetermined), a crucial semantic move to deny that divine foreknowledge entails causal predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"lapidem offensionis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'stone of offense' echoes Romans 9:32-33, where Paul speaks of Israel stumbling over the 'stone of offense' (the law), a passage central to Faustus's argument that works without faith lead to failure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"non ex operibus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's insistence that salvation is 'not from works' but 'from the one calling' aligns with semi-Pelagian polemic against a purely merit-based soteriology, while still affirming the role of human effort.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'non ex operibus' could be read as denying any role for works, but Faustus clarifies it refers specifically to works of the law, not all human action."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":97,"ref":"p97","source":"absit, ut proponi hic damnatio originis aestimetur, ubi uocantis benignitas et obtemperantis humilitas praedicatur et ubi fidei diuitias doctrina generalis inculcat ac lumen credulitatis insinuat. non ergo se hoc loco iniquitatis assertio, quae in ipsa conditione partem humani generis damnatam loquatur, interserat. causas uero, cur Iacob dilexerit deus et Esau odio habuerit, euidenter Geneseos expressit historia, ut intellegas non sine operum discussione nec sine ratione perspicua diuinitus pronuntiatum, ut Esau odio, Iacob autem dilectione dei dignus haberetur. apparuerunt plane in uita Iacob euidentes causae, quae iudicium\n\nVII. ....................... (QVID SIT, QVOD AIT, UT PROPOSITUM DEI MANERET).\n\nVIII. (CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT: TOTUS PERIIT ADAM).\n\n....... sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius. non superposuit homini peccatum sub hac ordinationis suae lege, sed subdidit.","english":"Far be it that the condemnation of origin should be thought to be set forth here, where the kindness of the one who calls and the humility of the one who obeys are proclaimed, and where the general teaching inculcates the riches of faith and instills the light of belief. Therefore, let not the assertion of iniquity, which speaks of a part of the human race as condemned in the very condition of its creation, intrude itself here. But the reasons why God loved Jacob and held Esau in hatred, the history of Genesis clearly expressed, so that you may understand that the divine pronouncement was not made without examination of works nor without clear reason, that Esau was held worthy of hatred, and Jacob of the love of God. Evident causes appeared plainly in the life of Jacob, which [determined] the judgment.\n\nVII. ....................... (WHAT IT MEANS THAT THE PLAN OF GOD REMAINED).\n\nVIII. (AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY: ADAM PERISHED ENTIRELY).\n\n....... his appetite will be under you, and you will rule over him. Sin did not place itself above man under this law of its ordering, but subjected itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"damnatio originis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'damnatio originis' (condemnation of origin) is a technical term in the predestinarian controversy, referring to the view that some are damned from birth by divine decree, which Faustus rejects.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jacob and Esau","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Jacob and Esau alludes to Genesis 25–27, where God's preference for Jacob over Esau is narrated; Faustus argues this was based on their works, not arbitrary predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"predestinarian controversy","severity":"info","text":"Faustus opposes the idea that part of humanity is condemned from creation, a view associated with extreme predestinarianism (e.g., Lucidus), which he counters by emphasizing merit and divine calling.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"section headings","severity":"info","text":"The headings 'VII' and 'VIII' mark the start of new arguments: VII addresses the constancy of God's plan, VIII refutes the claim that Adam perished entirely, indicating a structured polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"final sentence","severity":"caution","text":"The final sentence ('sub te erit appetitus...') appears fragmentary or misplaced; it may be a gloss or a truncated quotation from a patristic source on sin and order.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The final sentence is syntactically incomplete and its source is unclear; it may be a marginal note or a damaged passage.","The phrase 'sub te erit appetitus eius' echoes a biblical or patristic motif but is not a direct quotation from the Vulgate."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"Ecce piissimus moderator generosam esse cupiens facturam suam etiam post ruinam inclinatam, licet hominis uoluntatem totius passionis et concupiscentiae non famulam iubet esse, sed dominam, seductoris uel amicitiam uel repulsam in manu hominis posuit atque in eius iudicio conlocauit. uidetur quidem utriusque operis appetitum electioni ipsius permisisse, sed ideo, ut mali licentia boni fieret gloria. sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius. nulla peccandi necessitate concluditur, cuius discretioni committitur, ut peccato superioris libertate dominetur. degener uero animus, qui cum beneficio dei de peccato potest uictoriam consequi, mauult cum offensa dei seruus esse peccati.\n\nQuae cum ita sint, post primi hominis praeuaricationem non mors arbitrii, sed infirmitas, nec inpossibilitas, sed difficultas proposito labore successit. sed et Abel diuinis placere conspectibus per insitum a deo generaliter bonum, id est per propriae meruit uoluntatis affectum. hic ergo, cui cognomen iusti inmaculatae uitae perfectio dedit, quo erudiente iustitiae sectator existeret, nisi eum lex uisceribus inscripta docuisset?","english":"Behold, the most merciful Ruler, desiring His creation to be noble even after its fallen inclination, does not command that the will of man be the servant of all passion and concupiscence, but its mistress, and has placed the friendship or rejection of the seducer in the hand of man and set it in his judgment. He seems indeed to have permitted the appetite for each work to His choice, but for this reason, that the license of evil might become the glory of good. \"But his appetite shall be under you, and you will rule over it.\" He is not bound by any necessity of sinning, to whose discretion it is committed that he may rule, by the freedom of the superior, over sin. But a degenerate spirit, who with the benefit of God could obtain victory over sin, prefers, with offense to God, to be a servant of sin.\n\nThese things being so, after the first man's transgression, it was not the death of free choice that followed, but its weakness; not impossibility, but difficulty, with the proposed labor. But even Abel merited pleasing the divine sight through the good implanted generally by God, that is, through the affection of his own will. This man, therefore, to whom the perfection of an immaculate life gave the surname \"the Just,\" by whose instruction would he have become a follower of justice, unless the law inscribed in his very bowels had taught him?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"degener","severity":"info","text":"The term 'degener' (degenerate) here describes a will that chooses servitude to sin despite divine aid, contrasting with the earlier 'generosam' (noble) creation. It underscores Faustus's emphasis on moral responsibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Genesis 4:7 (LXX) or a similar wisdom tradition, where God tells Cain that sin's appetite will be under his control. Faustus adapts it to argue for human dominion over concupiscence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Abel ... cognomen iusti","severity":"info","text":"Abel is called 'the Just' (iustus) in early Christian tradition (e.g., Heb 11:4, and in patristic exegesis). Faustus uses Abel as a prelapsarian model of natural goodness, arguing that even after the Fall, human will retains capacity for virtue.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quae cum ita sint","severity":"info","text":"This transitional phrase marks a shift from the general argument about human freedom to a specific example (Abel) and a conclusion about postlapsarian free will. It structures the passage as a logical progression.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"non mors arbitrii, sed infirmitas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's denial that the Fall caused 'death of free choice' (mors arbitrii) directly counters the more pessimistic views of some contemporaries (e.g., certain readings of Augustine). This passage was later cited in semi-Pelagian debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"lex uisceribus inscripta","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'law inscribed in the bowels' is unusual; it may be a metaphor for natural law or an echo of Stoic or biblical language (cf. Rom 2:14-15). The precise source is uncertain, and the text may be corrupt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'lex uisceribus inscripta' is ambiguous: it could refer to natural law, divine imprint, or a specific biblical allusion. The reading taken is that it denotes an innate moral sense.","The identity of 'seducer' (seductor) is not specified; it likely refers to the devil, but could be a generic tempter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":99,"ref":"p99","source":"aut unde placituras deo hostias et per ignem caelitus adsumendas de adipibus et primitiis scisset eligere, nisi fides, quae eum amatorem uirtutum fecerat, inspirasset, sicut legimus: fide plurimam hostiam Abel quam Cain obtulit testimonium perhibente muneribus eius deo. quod nequaquam obtinere potuisset, nisi ad domini donum famuli accessisset obsequium. et tu nihil eum ordinatione dei habere iudicas proprium, cuius deuotioni deus perhibet testimonium? uides bonum credulitatis non nouellum esse priuilegium, sed uetustum, et inter ipsa mundi coalescentis exordia mentem hominis sicut intellectu atque ratione ita etiam fide a summo auctore dotatam? itaque iam tum dedit animae notitiam suam, quando ei committere dignatus est imaginem suam.\n\nVIIII. AD CUIUS IMAGINEM ET SIMILITUDINEM PRIMUS HOMO SIT CONDITUS.\n\nSed dicis: quid mihi ad libertatem arbitrii iungis imaginem dei, cum ille eximius conditor futurus secuturis saeculis et redemptor ad illam magis imaginem fecerit hominem, quam per uirginem erat adsumpturus ex homine? persuasio haec a plerisque profertur, sed omni ratione nudatur, quia prioris initia imaginem multo posterioris induere nullo modo possunt. aut quomodo nondum creati similitudinem is, qui primus creabatur, acciperet? inter haec facilius hoc credi possit, ut ad secundum Adam primus Adam imaginem suam pro ordinis ac temporis ratione transmitteret.","english":"or how would he have known to choose the offerings pleasing to God and to be taken up by celestial fire from the fats and first fruits, unless the faith which had made him a lover of virtues had inspired him, as we read: \"Faith bears witness that Abel offered a much greater sacrifice than Cain, his gifts being acceptable to God.\" This he could by no means have obtained unless the servant's obedience had approached the Lord's gift. And do you judge that he has nothing of his own by God's ordinance, whose devotion God bears witness to? You see that the good of belief is not a new privilege but an ancient one, and that even in the very beginnings of the coalescing world, the human mind was endowed by the supreme Author with intellect and reason, and also with faith. Therefore, even then He gave His knowledge to the soul when He deigned to entrust His image to it.\n\nIX. IN WHOSE IMAGE AND LIKENESS THE FIRST MAN WAS CREATED.\n\nBut you say: Why do you join the image of God to my freedom of will, when that eminent Creator, who was to be the future Redeemer in later ages, made man more in that image which He was to assume from man through the Virgin? This persuasion is put forward by many, but it is stripped of all reason, because the beginnings of the prior cannot in any way assume the image of the much later. Or how could he who was created first receive the likeness of one not yet created? Among these things, it could more easily be believed that the first Adam transmitted his own image to the second Adam according to the order and reason of time.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"fide plurimam hostiam Abel quam Cain obtulit testimonium perhibente muneribus eius deo","severity":"info","text":"Faustus loosely adapts Genesis 4:4-5, emphasizing Abel's offering as accepted by God. The phrase 'testimonium perhibente' echoes Vulgate usage (e.g., Heb 11:4) but is not a direct citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"imaginem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'imago' to denote the divine likeness in humanity, a key concept in his defense of free will. He distinguishes between the image given to Adam and the later image of Christ, arguing chronological priority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"persuasio haec a plerisque profertur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus refutes an unnamed view that the first man was made in the image of the future Christ. This likely targets contemporary Christological interpretations, possibly from semi-Pelagian circles, that conflated creation with incarnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VIIII. AD CUIUS IMAGINEM ET SIMILITUDINEM PRIMUS HOMO SIT CONDITUS","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading introduces a new argument: the image of God in Adam is prior to and distinct from the image of Christ. It marks a shift from defending free will to addressing a specific objection about the incarnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"ad secundum Adam primus Adam imaginem suam transmitteret","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's argument that Adam transmitted his image to Christ (the 'second Adam') was later criticized by Augustine and others for implying a subordination of Christ's humanity. This reflects the ongoing controversy over grace and free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'per ignem caelitus adsumendas' may refer to a specific ritual or biblical event (e.g., Levitical offerings consumed by fire), but Faustus does not specify. The reading taken is that it describes offerings accepted by divine fire.","The identity of 'a plerisque' (many) is vague; Faustus may be targeting unnamed opponents, possibly including Eucherius or other Gallic theologians."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"minime autem fieri poterat, ut imago nondum existentis substantiae diceretur is, qui ante tot saecula formabatur, et inprudens assertio probaretur, ut, sicut dicunt, similitudinis auctorem ex uirgine procreandum antiquissimi protoplasti persona praecederet.\n\nHuc accedit, quod multum res illa humiliaret in homine primae innocentiae decus, si inmaculatus ad exemplar illius fingeretur, qui peccaturi erat maculas curaturus, ut, cum transgressio nondum existeret, iam tamen transgressionis culpam futuri intercessoris forma praeferret. consequens itaque non erat consummatum atque perfectum ad imaginem illius fieri, per quem necesse erat perditum reparari, ne sub nomine uenturi medici in ipso tempore felicis exordii subplantandi uideretur ruina praedici. id ergo rationi magis congruit, ut in homine, cui in ipsa similitudine a deo gratiae res traditur, non naturae, imago hoc potius nuncupetur, quod a priore et superiore suscipitur, et de ueritate similitudo fuisse conlata plenius iudicetur, quam tamen cum filio naturali pater iure communicat. deinde et illud sollicitius aduertendum est, quod dominus noster Iesus Christus in primo tempore de suo meliora contulit, in secundo autem de nostro deteriora suscepit.","english":"But it could by no means happen that the one who was being formed many centuries before would be called the image of a substance not yet existing, and that a rash assertion would be proven, that, as they say, the author of the likeness to be born from a virgin would be preceded by the person of the most ancient protoplast.\n\nTo this is added that that matter would greatly humiliate the glory of primeval innocence in man, if the immaculate one were fashioned after the model of him who was to heal the stains of him who would sin, so that, when transgression did not yet exist, the form of the future intercessor would nevertheless already bear the guilt of transgression. Consequently, it was not fitting that the consummate and perfect one be made in the image of him through whom the lost one had to be restored, lest under the name of the coming physician, at the very time of the happy beginning, ruin seemed to be foretold for the one to be undermined. Therefore, it is more in accord with reason that in man, to whom in that likeness itself the gift of grace is given by God, not of nature, this image is rather called that which is received from a prior and superior source, and that the likeness is judged to have been conferred more fully from the truth, which, however, the father rightfully shares with his natural son. Then too, it must be noted more carefully that our Lord Jesus Christ in the first age conferred better things from his own, but in the second age he received worse things from ours.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"imago nondum existentis substantiae","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that Adam cannot be the image of Christ, since Christ's substance did not yet exist. This counters a semi-Pelagian or typological reading that would see Adam as a prefiguration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"protoplasti","severity":"info","text":"Protoplasti (from Greek πρωτόπλαστος, 'first-formed') is a patristic term for Adam. Faustus uses it to emphasize Adam's chronological priority over Christ, undermining the idea that Adam was made in Christ's image.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Huc accedit","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Huc accedit' ('To this is added') marks a second argument in a logical sequence. Faustus builds a cumulative case against the notion that the prelapsarian Adam was modeled on the future Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"similitudinis auctorem ex uirgine procreandum","severity":"info","text":"This phrase refers to Christ, born of a virgin, as the 'author of the likeness.' Faustus refutes the idea that Adam, as a type, could precede the antitype Christ, a view possibly held by some Gallic theologians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"in primo tempore ... in secundo autem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts Christ's first coming (incarnation, bringing divine gifts) with his second (the eschaton, receiving human suffering). This frames the argument that Christ's prior state cannot be modeled on fallen humanity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"subplantandi","severity":"caution","text":"The verb 'subplantandi' (from supplantare, 'to trip up' or 'undermine') is rare in this context. It may be a scribal error for 'supplantandi' or a deliberate choice to convey the idea of being overthrown by sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'subplantandi' is ambiguous: it could be a variant spelling of 'supplantandi' or a corruption. The reading taken is 'to be undermined' (by sin).","The identity of 'they' (dicunt) is unspecified; likely opponents in the semi-Pelagian controversy, possibly citing a typological exegesis of Genesis."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"et propterea quando ex nihilo nos parauit, imaginem suam factor adposuit, quando uero nos perditos reparauit, formam serui restitutor adsumpsit, sicut ait apostolus: formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inuentus ut homo.\n\nQuod si ad illam exterioris hominis speciem formati sumus, in cuius membris uisus, auditus, gustus, odoratus et tactus est, quid erit honoris aut gratiae, si de illa participemus imagine, quam nobis ex parte maxima communem scimus esse cum pecude. grauis ergo eorum error est, qui arbitrantur primum hominem iuxta illum, qui erat sumendus ex Maria, ab incorporea trinitate conpositum. neque enim pater uel spiritus sanctus ueste carnis et habitu erat hominis induendus, ut ad eius quasi ad imaginis suae speciem ac facturam primi hominis lineamenta disponeret ac membra plasmaret, ut posset dicere: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem, quam sumpturi sumus ex hac uirgine. ideoque ex deitatis similitudine deriuatur, quidquid homini trinitas in commune largitur. nec sic quidem primus homo secundi Adae suscepisse imaginem dici posset, etiam si filius dei solus hominem condidisset.","english":"and therefore, when He prepared us from nothing, the Creator applied His own image; but when He repaired us after we were lost, the Restorer assumed the form of a servant, as the Apostle says: taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in appearance as a man.\n\nBut if we were formed according to that species of the outer man, in whose members there is sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, what honor or grace will there be, if we partake of that image which we know to be common to us for the most part with the beast? Therefore, their error is grave who think that the first man was composed by the incorporeal Trinity according to that man who was to be taken from Mary. For neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit was to be clothed with the garment of flesh and the appearance of a man, so that, as if to the species and fashion of His own image, He might arrange the features and mold the limbs of the first man, so that He could say: let us make man to the image and likeness which we are about to take from this virgin. And therefore, whatever the Trinity bestows upon man in common is derived from the likeness of the divinity. Nor indeed could the first man be said to have received the image of the second Adam, even if the Son of God alone had created man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inuentus ut homo","severity":"info","text":"Faustus conflates Philippians 2:7 (formam servi accipiens) with a phrase reminiscent of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult) or a liturgical formula, emphasizing Christ's voluntary servile form.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"imaginem suam","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes between the image of God (imago Dei) given at creation and the form of a servant (forma servi) assumed by Christ in redemption, a key anti-Semipelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ex Maria","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ex Maria' reflects the 5th-century Christological emphasis on the Virgin Mary as Theotokos, affirmed at Ephesus (431), which Faustus uses to argue against a pre-existent human form of the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quod si ... grauis ergo","severity":"info","text":"Faustus structures the argument as a conditional (Quod si) leading to a conclusion (grauis ergo), refuting the idea that the first man was modeled on the future incarnate Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"error est","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus's polemic against those who think the first man was made according to Christ's human form targets a view possibly held by some Gallic monks; his work was later condemned at the Council of Orange (529) for semi-Pelagian tendencies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'habitu inuentus ut homo' may echo a creedal formula but its exact source is uncertain; the translation 'found in appearance as a man' is adopted."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"cum uero unita trinitas dicat: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, plurali singulare et singulari plurale permiscens, et iterum: et fecit deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, ad imaginem dei fecit illum, totiens legis hominem ad imaginem dei conditum et qua auctoritate contra diuina eloquia praesumis asserere iuxta serui formam fuisse conpositum? cum ergo imago haec a patre et filio et sancto spiritu conferatur, suae absque dubio trium personarum una diuinitas primo homini suae imaginis tribuit dignitatem.\n\nQuae cum ita sint, inesse homini licet adtenuatam uoluntatis propriae libertatem minime dubitabis, si primam gratiam, qua a deo est honoratus, inspexeris. imago ergo dei homo dicitur, quia ei indulgenter ac dignanter inseruit ueritas iustitiam, ratio sapientiam, perennitas aeternitatem. de imagine dei est, quod intellegit, quod rectum sapit, quod inter malum et bonum iudicio examinante discriminat. et cum deus bonitas, misericordia, patientia atque iustitia sit, quanto quisque magis iustus ac patiens inuenitur, tanto magis deo similis adprobatur, cuius utique similitudo non in uultibus, sed in uirtutibus possidetur. et propterea de deo dicitur: subtilis, simplex, sincerus. simplex utique, quia nihil illi extrinsecus adiectitium, nihil aliunde conlatum, sed in illo uirtus, essentia atque substantia est.","english":"But when the united Trinity says: \"Let us make man in our image and likeness,\" mixing the singular with the plural and the plural with the singular, and again: \"And God made man in his image and likeness,\" \"He made him in the image of God,\" so often you read that man was created in the image of God, and by what authority do you presume to assert, contrary to divine utterances, that he was formed according to the form of a servant? Since, therefore, this image is conferred by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one divinity of the three persons undoubtedly bestowed the dignity of its own image upon the first man.\n\nSince this is so, you will not doubt at all that a diminished freedom of one's own will is present in man, if you consider the first grace by which he was honored by God. Man is therefore called the image of God, because truth, justice; reason, wisdom; and perpetuity, eternity were inserted into him indulgently and worthily. It is from the image of God that he understands, that he rightly knows, that he distinguishes between evil and good with an examining judgment. And since God is goodness, mercy, patience, and justice, the more just and patient anyone is found to be, the more he is approved as similar to God, whose likeness is certainly possessed not in faces, but in virtues. And for this reason it is said of God: subtle, simple, sincere. Simple indeed, because nothing external is added to him, nothing conferred from elsewhere, but in him virtue, essence, and substance are one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram","severity":"info","text":"Faustus conflates Gen 1:26 ('Let us make man') with the phrase 'image and likeness' from Gen 1:26–27, reading the plural 'nostram' as a Trinitarian marker.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unita trinitas","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'united Trinity' is Faustus’s shorthand for the consubstantial Trinity acting as one agent in creation, a key point in his anti-Pelagian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"imago dei","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that the image of God is conferred by the whole Trinity, not just the Son, countering the idea that the image is merely the form of a servant (forma servi).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"adtenuatam uoluntatis propriae libertatem","severity":"info","text":"Faustus concedes a 'diminished' free will after the Fall, but insists that the first grace (prima gratia) of creation already shows that some freedom remains.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"similitudo non in uultibus, sed in uirtutibus","severity":"info","text":"This moral interpretation of likeness to God echoes a common patristic topos (e.g., Ambrose, Augustine) that true similitude is ethical, not physical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quae cum ita sint","severity":"info","text":"This transitional phrase marks a shift from exegesis of Genesis to a theological inference about free will and grace, typical of Faustus’s argumentative method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'adtenuatam' could mean 'diminished' or 'attenuated'; the translation takes it as 'diminished' to align with Faustus’s semi-Pelagian position."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"ac sic deus quod habet est, homo uero haec dona, nisi acceperit, non habet. cum ergo deus iustus ac iustitia, misericors et misericordia, pius et pietas sit, homo iustus esse potest, iustitia esse non potest, misericors esse potest, misericordia esse non potest, pius esse potest, pietas esse non potest, quia. non naturaliter habet ista, sed largiter. uerbi gratia ille aurum est, homo uero deauratum uas uideri potest, et in homine gratia est, quod in deo natura est, et in hoc creatum est, quod in illo probatur ingenitum. et ideo iuxta hanc rationem magis duplex status hominis apparet, cui haec ita inseruntur, ut separentur saepius et auferantur.\n\nErrant ergo, qui iustitiam reliquasque uirtutes animae putant esse substantiam, sine quibus utcumque potest uitali in natura sua uigore subsistere, sine quibus et diabolus in natura sua manere dinoscitur. manifeste enim inueniuntur adposita, dum culpis interuenientibus exuuntur. solum uero arbitrium et inmortalitas, quae etiam malis insita est, non aufertur, licet dignitas et beatitudo inmortalitatis possit auferri. quantum ergo ad libertatem arbitrii et inmortalitatem pertinet, imaginem dei licet a se et in se decoloratam etiam mali habere possunt, similitudinem nisi boni habere non possunt.","english":"And thus God is what he has, but man does not have these gifts unless he receives them. Therefore, since God is just and justice, merciful and mercy, pious and piety, man can be just, but cannot be justice; he can be merciful, but cannot be mercy; he can be pious, but cannot be piety, because he does not possess these things by nature, but by gift. For example, that one is gold, but man can be seen as a gilded vessel; and in man grace is what in God is nature, and in this creature is what in that one is proven uncreated. And therefore, according to this reasoning, the twofold state of man appears more clearly, to whom these things are so implanted that they are often separated and taken away.\n\nTherefore, those err who think that justice and the other virtues are the substance of the soul, without which it can somehow subsist by the vital vigor of its own nature, without which even the devil is known to remain in his own nature. For they are manifestly found to be added, since they are put off when faults intervene. But free will and immortality, which is also implanted in the wicked, is not taken away, although the dignity and blessedness of immortality can be taken away. Therefore, as far as pertains to freedom of the will and immortality, even the wicked can possess the image of God, though discolored from and within themselves, but they cannot possess the likeness unless they are good.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"largiter","severity":"info","text":"The adverb 'largiter' (by gift) is rare in classical Latin, used here to contrast divine possession by nature with human reception by grace. It reinforces Faustus's anti-Pelagian emphasis on the gratuity of virtues.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The analogy 'ille aurum est, homo uero deauratum uas' (that one is gold, man a gilded vessel) illustrates the ontological difference: God is substance, man only participates through grace. This echoes a common patristic metaphor for theosis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's denial that virtues are the soul's substance counters a view possibly held by some Semi-Pelagians or earlier Stoicizing Christians. He insists virtues are adventitious, separable by sin, preserving the soul's natural capacity even in the devil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a series of antitheses (God is X, man can be X but not X-ity) to a conclusion about the duplex status hominis, then to a refutation of error, and finally to a distinction between image (retained by all) and likeness (only by the good).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's distinction between image (imago) and likeness (similitudo) was influential in later medieval theology, notably in discussions of the fall and human dignity. His claim that the wicked retain a 'discolored' image anticipates Augustinian and later Reformed emphases.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'largiter' could be read as 'abundantly' but context favors 'by gift' (from largiri). The 'duplex status hominis' is not fully defined; it likely refers to the dual condition of being created in God's image yet fallen."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"quae cum ita sint, cum homines ita fuerint imagine et similitudine (dei praediti, ut multi etiam filii) dei meruerint nuncupari, uel paucis adhuc exemplis praestringere nos oportet, quanti ante legem litterae erudiente lege naturae, quae prima, ut diximus, dei gratia est, uestibula salutis intrauerint per Christum ad ipsa uitae penetralia perducendi.\n\nSed (dei) quoque in locum Abel morum ac meritorum similitudine substitutus unde profana fratris instituta respuere, unde meliora potuisset eligere, nisi eum in uiam rectam intellectus et ratio direxisset, qua duce sanctas traditiones et praedicabiles disciplinas uelut hereditarium munus transmisit ad posteros, ut angelorum uel filiorum dei nomine per multas censerentur aetates? quis dubitet innumeras eius familias deo placitas, libertate arbitrii praeditas et ex gentibus fuisse saluatas, de quibus pauci admodum, sed clari atque perfecti ad inluminationem saeculi sacris produntur eloquiis? unde Enoch cum deo ambulare uel deo placere potuisset, nisi eum lex uisceribus infusa secreto magisterio inluminasset in tantum, ut nihil terrenum sapiens mirabiliter a terra deo adsumente raperetur? qui dum fidei merito in prima saeculi illius aetate ceteros antecellit, fidem ipsam cum lege naturae sibi traditam fuisse perdocuit, sicut legimus: fide Enoch translatus est, ut non uideret mortem.","english":"Since these things are so, since men were endowed with the image and likeness of God that many even merited to be called sons of God, it behooves us to touch briefly, with a few examples still, how many, before the law of the letter, with the law of nature—which, as we have said, is the first grace of God—instructing them, entered the vestibules of salvation, to be led through Christ into the very penetralia of life.\n\nBut also Abel, substituted in place of God by similarity of character and merits, whence could he have rejected the profane institutions of his brother, whence could he have chosen better, unless understanding and reason had directed him into the right path, by which guide he transmitted holy traditions and praiseworthy disciplines as a hereditary gift to posterity, so that they were esteemed by the name of angels or sons of God through many ages? Who would doubt that countless families pleasing to God, endowed with freedom of choice, were saved from among the Gentiles, of whom very few, but illustrious and perfect, are revealed in sacred scriptures for the illumination of the age? Whence could Enoch have walked with God or pleased God, unless the law infused in his inmost being had enlightened him by secret teaching to such an extent that, wise in nothing earthly, he was miraculously snatched from the earth by God assuming him? He who, by the merit of faith, excelled all others in that first age of the world, thereby taught that faith itself had been handed down to him along with the law of nature, as we read: Enoch was translated by faith, so that he would not see death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"vestibula salutis ... penetralia uitae","severity":"info","text":"The contrast between 'vestibules of salvation' and 'inner chambers of life' is a spatial metaphor for the stages of grace: natural law (first grace) leads to the threshold, Christ leads to the interior.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"lege naturae, quae prima ... dei gratia est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus identifies the law of nature as the 'first grace of God,' a key Semi-Pelagian claim that grace is initially available through natural reason and free will, not solely through supernatural gift.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"fide Enoch translatus est, ut non uideret mortem","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5, where Enoch is taken by faith. Faustus uses it to argue that pre-Mosaic patriarchs were saved by natural law and faith, not by written law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Abel ... substitutus in locum dei","severity":"info","text":"Faustus presents Abel as a type of Christ or a divinely appointed model, whose rejection of Cain's 'profane institutions' demonstrates the sufficiency of natural reason guided by grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed ... quoque ... unde ... nisi","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a rhetorical question pattern (Sed ... unde ... nisi) to argue that Abel and Enoch could not have acted rightly without the guidance of natural law as first grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed (dei) quoque in locum Abel","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'in locum dei' is textually uncertain; the edition marks 'dei' with parentheses, suggesting a possible scribal insertion or corruption. The sense may be 'in place of God' or 'in God's stead.'","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in locum dei' may be corrupt; the reading taken is 'in place of God,' but the text could be emended to 'in locum Abel' or similar.","The identity of 'multi etiam filii dei' is ambiguous: it may refer to the patriarchs or to all righteous men."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"ante translationem enim testimonium habuit placuisse deo. sine fide autem inpossibile est placere deo. credere autem oportet accedentem ad deum, quia est et inquirentibus se fit remunerator. nisi uoluntaria deuotione et intentione quaereretur, remunerationem homini non deferret, nisi ei aliquid proprium, unde posset placere, tribuisset. dum autem dicit: ante translationem enim testimonium habuit placuisse deo, dubium non est, quod prius uita examinetur et sic electio subsequatur. in persuasione praedestinationis facile declinabitur error accedens, si interrogetur causa praecedens. inquirentibus ergo se remunerator fit: cum magno deest crimine non quaerenti, qui dedit unde possit inquiri.\n\nQualem quantamque homo a deo legem prima conditione susceperit, perfecta etiam Noe iustitia declarauit, quia generalia fidei dona speciali in se studio uirtutum sectator excoluit. cuius tempore cum corrupisset omnis caro uiam suam super terram, damnatio secuta non esset, nisi praeuaricatio ex arbitrio hominis praecessisset. sicut ergo culpa poenam meretur, ita culpam poena testatur, quae pro aequitate moderatoris infertur. dum autem dicit sermo diuinus: omnis caro corruperat uiam suam, iniquitates illius temporis non inpositae definitioni, sed uoluntariae inputat prauitati.","english":"Before the translation, indeed, he had testimony that he had pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please God. Moreover, one who approaches God must believe, because He exists and becomes the rewarder of those who seek Him. Unless He were sought by voluntary devotion and intention, He would not confer reward upon man, unless He had granted him something of his own, whereby he could please. Now when it says: \"Before the translation, indeed, he had testimony that he had pleased God,\" there is no doubt that life is first examined and thus election follows. In the persuasion of predestination, the approaching error will easily be turned aside, if the preceding cause is questioned. Therefore, He becomes the rewarder of those who seek Him: great is the fault of the one who does not seek, to whom He gave the means by which He may be sought.\n\nWhat and how great a law man received from God at his first creation, even the perfect righteousness of Noah declared, because he cultivated the general gifts of faith by a special zeal of virtues in himself. At whose time, when every flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth, condemnation would not have followed unless transgression from man's free will had preceded. Therefore, just as fault merits punishment, so punishment testifies to the fault, which is inflicted according to the equity of the moderator. Now when the divine word says: \"Every flesh had corrupted its way,\" it imputes the iniquities of that time not to imposed definition, but to voluntary depravity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ante translationem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ante translationem' refers to Enoch before his translation (assumption) to heaven, a tradition based on Gen 5:24 and Heb 11:5.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"omnis caro corruperat uiam suam","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Gen 6:12 (LXX) describing the corruption before the flood, which Faustus interprets as voluntary depravity, not imposed fate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"persuasione praedestinationis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus opposes a predestinarian view, likely that of Lucidus or extreme Augustinians, arguing that divine reward follows human seeking, not prior election.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"dum autem dicit","severity":"info","text":"This formula introduces a scriptural citation and its exegesis, a common structural device in Faustus’s argumentation, marking a shift from general principle to specific proof.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluntaria deuotione et intentione","severity":"info","text":"Faustus’s emphasis on voluntary devotion parallels earlier semi-Pelagian arguments (e.g., Cassian, Coll. 13.8) that human initiative cooperates with grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ante translationem enim testimonium habuit placuisse deo","severity":"caution","text":"The source of this scriptural citation is uncertain; it may be a paraphrase of Heb 11:5 or a lost Latin version of Enochic tradition, not a direct Vulgate quote.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'ante translationem' is not explicitly named; the reading assumes Enoch based on patristic tradition.","The scriptural source of 'ante translationem enim testimonium habuit placuisse deo' is unclear; it may be a conflation of Heb 11:5 and Gen 5:24."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":106,"ref":"p106","source":"legem itaque litterae absque dubio caelestis dispensatio non dedisset, nisi legem naturae interpellasset usque ad iram diluuii perducta transgressio. ideoque haec lex Moysi, quae prima creditur, iam secunda est.\n\nOpus itaque naturalis legis in cordibus hominum fuisse conscriptum etiam beatissimus pontifex Augustinus doctissimo sermone prosequitur ita dicens: utrumque simul currit in isto alueo atque torrente generis humani, malum, quod a parente trahitur, et bonum, quod a creante tribuitur. item nullius quippe uitium ita contra naturam est, ut naturae deleat etiam extrema uestigia. nam hinc est, quod etiam impii cogitant aeterna ac praedicanda etiam in praesenti saeculo iura constituunt et multa recte reprehendunt recteque laudant in hominum moribus. quibus ea tandem regulis iudicant nisi naturalibus, in quibus uident, quem ad modum quisque uiuere debeat, • etiam si nec ipsi eodem modo uiuant? quod et apostolus ad Romanos euidentius protestatur dicens: reuelatur enim ira dei de caelo super omnem impietatem et iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui ueritatem in iniustitia detinent, quia, quod notum est dei, manifestum est illis. deus enim illis manifestauit: inuisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. sempiterna quoque eius uirtus et diuinitas, ut sint inexcusabiles.","english":"Therefore, without doubt, the heavenly dispensation would not have given the law of the letter unless transgression, carried to the point of the wrath of the flood, had interrupted the law of nature. And so this law of Moses, which is believed to be first, is already second.\n\nThus, that the work of the natural law was inscribed in the hearts of men is also pursued by the most blessed pontiff Augustine in a most learned discourse, speaking thus: \"Both run together in that channel and torrent of the human race: the evil that is drawn from the parent, and the good that is bestowed by the Creator.\" Likewise, no vice is so contrary to nature that it erases even the last traces of nature. For this reason, even the impious think of eternal things and establish laws to be proclaimed even in the present age, and they rightly censure and rightly praise many things in human customs. By what rules, then, do they judge, if not by natural ones, in which they see how each person ought to live, even if they themselves do not live in the same way? This the Apostle also declares more clearly to the Romans, saying: \"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of those men who detain the truth in injustice, because what is known of God is manifest to them. For God has revealed it to them: for His invisible things are perceived, understood through the things that have been made, from the creation of the world. Also His eternal power and divinity, so that they are inexcusable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"legem itaque litterae ... iam secunda est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus presents the Mosaic law as a secondary, remedial dispensation following the failure of natural law, marked by the flood.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"reuelatur enim ira dei de caelo ... ut sint inexcusabiles","severity":"info","text":"This passage loosely echoes Romans 1:18-20, where Paul speaks of divine wrath and knowledge of God through creation, but Faustus adapts the wording freely.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"beatissimus pontifex Augustinus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus cites Augustine as an authority, though his own semi-Pelagian views often diverged from Augustine's later anti-Pelagian works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"opus itaque naturalis legis ... Augustinus doctissimo sermone prosequitur","severity":"info","text":"The embedded Augustinian quotation is not verbatim from any known work; it may be a paraphrase or a lost fragment, reflecting Faustus's selective use of Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"lex naturae","severity":"info","text":"Natural law here is the innate moral sense inscribed by God, distinct from the Mosaic law, a key concept in Faustus's argument for human capacity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quod et apostolus ad Romanos euidentius protestatur","severity":"caution","text":"The scriptural citation is not a direct quotation of Romans but a composite; the phrase 'detain the truth in injustice' is non-Pauline and may reflect Faustus's own wording.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Augustinian quotation is uncertain; it may be a loose paraphrase or from a lost work.","The scriptural citation conflates several Pauline themes without exact correspondence to a single verse."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"quia cum cognouissent deum, non sicut deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum. dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt et mutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilis dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis. nisi enim a lege dei recessisset uoluntas, iram dei non sensisset impietas. et cum dicat: quia, quod notum est dei, manifestum est in illis. deus enim illis manifestauit, euidenter hoc disserit per internam doctrinam paginis mentis inscriptam manifestam illis esse debuisse notitiam dei et per creaturae magnificentiam creatorem potuisse cognosci. inexcusabiles quippe apud deum non essent, nisi et extrinsecus et intrinsecus copiam percipiendae ueritatis habuissent adiciente apostolo: quia, inquit, cum cognouissent deum, non sicut deum glorificauerunt. impios ergo et de intellectu, quod. abusi sunt, damnat, quorum iniustitiam in contemptum diuinitatis accusat.","english":"because, although they had known God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they vanished in their own thoughts and their foolish heart was darkened. For, saying that they were wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of a corruptible human image. For unless the will had departed from the law of God, impiety would not have felt the wrath of God. And when he says: \"because what is known of God is manifest in them. For God revealed to them,\" he clearly argues this: that through the internal teaching inscribed on the pages of the mind, the knowledge of God ought to have been manifest to them, and that the Creator could have been known through the magnificence of creation. For they would not be inexcusable before God unless they had had, both externally and internally, an abundance for perceiving the truth, with the Apostle adding: \"because,\" he says, \"although they had known God, they did not glorify Him as God.\" Therefore, he condemns the impious also for their understanding, which they abused, and accuses their injustice as contempt for the divinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quia cum cognouissent deum, non sicut deum glorificauerunt","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 1:21, where Paul reproaches those who knew God but failed to honor him. Faustus adapts the verse to support his argument about natural law and human culpability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"paginis mentis inscriptam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'pages of the mind inscribed' echoes the Stoic and patristic concept of the 'law written on the heart' (lex naturalis). Faustus uses it to argue that knowledge of God is innate and accessible through reason.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"internam doctrinam","severity":"info","text":"The 'internal teaching' refers to the natural law implanted by God, a key theme in Faustus's semi-Pelagian defense of human free will against predestinarian views. This passage counters the idea that grace alone enables knowledge of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"adiciente apostolo","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses the phrase 'the Apostle adding' to introduce a scriptural citation (Romans 1:21) as a proof-text, reinforcing his argument that pre-Mosaic humanity had sufficient means to know God and thus bears responsibility for impiety.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inexcusabiles quippe apud deum non essent","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's claim that humans are 'inexcusable before God' unless they had access to truth reflects his anti-Manichaean and anti-predestinarian stance, later criticized by Augustine's followers for overstating natural human capacity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'euanuerunt' (they vanished) is a rare verb; the English draft renders it literally, but it may imply spiritual dissipation or moral emptiness.","The phrase 'quod notum est dei' is ambiguous: it could mean 'what is known of God' (as translated) or 'what is known to God'; the context favors the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":108,"ref":"p108","source":"Famosi autem exundatio uasta diluuii quid aliud nisi arbitrium humani generis per reatum damnati orbis asseruit? ac sic Noe perfecta iustitia spontaneos saeculi illius et ostendit et condemnauit errores, sicut legimus: fide Noe responso accepto de his, quae adhuc non uidebantur, metuens aptauit arcam in salutem domus suae. per quam damnauit mundum et iustitiae, quae per fidem est, heres est institutus. quare condemnauit mundum? quia sequi mundi improbitas iustitiae neglexit exemplum. ac sic inoboedientis accusat reatum et, qui placuit per obsequium, arguit alios placere nihilominus potuisse per studium. certe nullum in illa aetate fatalis constitutio locum habuit. nam quia uniuersalis fuerat praemissa transgressio, uniuersalis est secuta damnatio. quomodo dicis, quod adsumatur unus et alius relinquatur? uide, quem ad modum excepta iusti familia totus orbis cogente iniquitate deletur. illud ergo, quod asseris, speciale decretum excluditur per generale iudicium et, qui pro improbitate damnatur, bonum facere potuisse conuincitur.","english":"The famous vast flood of the deluge—what else did it assert but the judgment of the human race through the condemnation of a guilty world? And thus Noah’s perfect righteousness both revealed and condemned the spontaneous errors of that age, just as we read: Noah, having received a response by faith concerning things not yet seen, in fear fitted the ark for the salvation of his household. Through this he condemned the world and was established as heir of the righteousness that comes through faith. Why did he condemn the world? Because the world’s wickedness neglected the example of righteousness. And thus he accuses the guilt of the disobedient, and he who pleased through obedience argues that others could likewise have pleased through effort. Certainly, no fatal decree had a place in that age. For because a universal transgression had preceded, a universal condemnation followed. How can you say that one is taken up and another left behind? See how, except for the just man’s family, the whole world is destroyed under the compulsion of iniquity. Therefore, that special decree which you assert is excluded by the general judgment, and he who is condemned for wickedness is proven to have been able to do good.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Famosi autem exundatio uasta diluuii","severity":"info","text":"Faustus interprets the universal flood as a divine judgment on human free will, arguing that the destruction of all but Noah's family disproves any predestinarian 'special decree' (speciale decretum).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"fide Noe responso accepto de his, quae adhuc non uidebantur","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Hebrews 11:7, where Noah is commended for faith in unseen things, and possibly Genesis 6:13-22, where Noah receives divine warning about the flood.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"speciale decretum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'special decree' refers to the predestinarian claim that God selects individuals for salvation or damnation by a fixed, non-negotiable decree, which Faustus rejects in favor of universal judgment based on human merit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Noe perfecta iustitia","severity":"info","text":"Noah's 'perfect righteousness' is a key example in Faustus's anti-Pelagian and anti-predestinarian argument, illustrating that human effort (studium) and obedience can lead to salvation, contra fatalistic views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quomodo dicis, quod adsumatur unus et alius relinquatur?","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question directly challenges the predestinarian position, using the flood narrative to argue that universal condemnation follows universal transgression, not selective divine choice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"per reatum damnati orbis","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'through the condemnation of a guilty world' is ambiguous: it could mean the flood was a punishment for the world's guilt, or that the world's guilt itself constituted the condemnation. The translation opts for the former.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'per reatum damnati orbis' could be read as instrumental ('by means of the condemnation of a guilty world') or causal ('because of the guilt of a condemned world'). The translation takes it as instrumental, aligning with Faustus's argument that the flood was a punitive judgment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"X. DE EO, QVOD NATURAE LEQVM IN PRIMO HOMINE ASSERUNT INTERISSE NEC PER POSTEROS UIGUISSE USQVE AD SALUATORIS ADUENTUM.\n\nSed dicis naturalia bona commemoranda non esse; quia ante aduentum Christi nequaquam gentes ad salutem pertinuisse manifestum est. qui naturam in bonis suis negat debere praedicari, nescit profecto ipsum naturae auctorem esse, qui gratiae est. hoc qui inprudentissime negat, negat naturae bonum extra dei opificium et aut numen quod esse arbitratur aut fatum. cum uero ipse sit conditor, qui reparator, unus idemque in utriusque operis laude benedicitur, unus idemque in utriusque operis praeconio celebratur. iure itaque utriusque rei munus assero, quia me illi scio debere, quod natus sum, cui debeo, quod renatus sum. et propterea non ideo negabo conditoris dona, quia perdidi, sed priora ideo sequentibus non exaequabo, quia multipliciter in melius reparata suscepi. extollam beneficia creantis, sed in inmensum praeferam redimentis.","english":"X. CONCERNING THE ASSERTION THAT THE LAWS OF NATURE PERISHED IN THE FIRST MAN AND DID NOT FLOURISH THROUGH DESCENDANTS UNTIL THE COMING OF THE SAVIOR.\n\nBut you say that the goods of nature are not to be mentioned, because it is manifest that before the coming of Christ the Gentiles in no way pertained to salvation. He who denies that nature ought to be praised in its goods surely does not know that the author of nature is the same as the author of grace. He who most imprudently denies this denies the good of nature apart from the work of God, and either the divinity which he supposes or fate. But since the same one is the creator who is the restorer, the one and the same is blessed in the praise of both works, the one and the same is celebrated in the proclamation of both works. Rightly, therefore, I assert the gift of each, because I know that I owe to him that I was born, to whom I owe that I was reborn. And for that reason I will not deny the gifts of the creator because I lost them, but I will not equate the former with the latter, because I have received them restored manifold for the better. I will extol the benefits of the creator, but I will infinitely prefer those of the redeemer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"X. DE EO, QVOD NATURAE LEQVM IN PRIMO HOMINE ASSERUNT INTERISSE NEC PER POSTEROS UIGUISSE USQVE AD SALUATORIS ADUENTUM","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading introduces a new argument: the claim that the laws of nature perished in the first man and did not survive through descendants until Christ's coming. This frames the following rebuttal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"naturae bona","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'goods of nature' (naturalia bona) to denote prelapsarian human capacities, which he insists persist after the Fall, though damaged. This is central to his anti-Pelagian and semi-Pelagian stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"auctorem naturae ... qui gratiae est","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that the same God is author of both nature and grace, so denying nature's goodness implicitly denies God's creative work. This links creation and redemption as continuous divine acts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"aut numen ... aut fatum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts Christian creation with pagan alternatives: a vague divinity (numen) or fate (fatum). This reflects late antique polemics against philosophical determinism and polytheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"quod natus sum ... quod renatus sum","severity":"info","text":"The pairing of birth (natus) and rebirth (renatus) echoes Pauline and baptismal language, emphasizing that grace does not abolish nature but elevates it. Faustus insists on gratitude for both.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"multipliciter in melius reparata suscepi","severity":"caution","text":"Faustus claims that natural goods are restored 'manifold for the better' after the Fall, a position that could be read as minimizing original sin's effects. This nuance is contested in later Augustinian tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'naturae lequm' in the heading is likely a scribal error for 'naturae legum' (laws of nature). The English draft follows this emendation.","The phrase 'aut numen quod esse arbitratur' is ambiguous: it could mean 'either the divinity which he supposes' (as in the draft) or 'either a divinity that he thinks exists'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":110,"ref":"p110","source":"Ne in hoc quidem uidebor incautus, si profitear, quod aliquotiens in dispositionibus nostris non quidem in uitae nostrae primordiis, sed dumtaxat in mediis gratias speciales et ex accedenti largitate uenientes uoluntas nostra deo ita ordinante praecedat. utrum ita sit, sacra interrogemus eloquia. legimus in euangelio dicentem dominum: quid tibi uis faciam? et iterum: uis sanus fieri? uides, quia non tribuitur munus salutis, nisi prius interrogetur desiderium uoluntatis. sed et cum uenitur ad baptismum, prius accedentis uoluntas inquiritur, ut regenerantis gratia subsequatur. et in centurione Cornelio, quia praecessit uoluntas gratiam, ideo praeuenit et gratia regenerationem. nihil hic, ut opinor, redolet praesumptionis, cum et hoc ipsum incessabiliter asseram, quod deo ipsam debeam uoluntatem, praesertim cum in omnibus eius motibus ad opus gratiae referam uel inchoationis initia uel consummationis extrema.","english":"Not even in this matter shall I seem incautious, if I profess that, in our dispositions—not indeed in the beginnings of our life, but only in the midst of them—special graces, coming from an additional generosity, are sometimes preceded by our will, with God so ordaining. Let us consult the sacred Scriptures to see whether this is so. We read in the Gospel the Lord saying: \"What do you wish me to do for you?\" and again: \"Do you wish to be healed?\" You see that the gift of salvation is not bestowed unless the desire of the will is first inquired into. But also when it comes to baptism, the will of the one approaching is first sought, so that the grace of regeneration may follow. And in the case of the centurion Cornelius, because the will preceded grace, therefore grace also preceded regeneration. Nothing here, I think, smacks of presumption, since I incessantly assert that I owe even this will itself to God, especially as I refer all its movements—whether the beginnings of inception or the final points of completion—to the work of grace.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"in mediis gratias speciales et ex accedenti largitate uenientes","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes 'special graces' that come from an additional generosity (ex accedenti largitate) and occur only in the midst of life (in mediis), not at its beginnings. This limits the scope of human will's precedence to later graces, not initial salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quid tibi uis faciam?","severity":"info","text":"The Gospel quotation 'What do you wish me to do for you?' is not verbatim in the Vulgate; it may echo Jesus' question to the blind man (Mark 10:51) or a similar synoptic passage. Faustus uses it to argue that will precedes grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uis sanus fieri?","severity":"info","text":"The question 'Do you wish to be healed?' likely alludes to John 5:6 (Vulgate: 'Vis sanus fieri?'), where Jesus asks the paralytic. Faustus cites it to support the priority of will in receiving grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Cornelio","severity":"info","text":"The centurion Cornelius (Acts 10) is a key example for Faustus: his will preceded grace, and grace then preceded regeneration (baptism). This aligns with semi-Pelagian views that human initiative can cooperate with grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"praesumptionis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus defends himself against the charge of presumption (praesumptionis), a term used by opponents like Prosper of Aquitaine to criticize semi-Pelagian claims that human will can initiate salvation. He insists he attributes even the will to God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"in dispositionibus nostris","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'in our dispositions' (in dispositionibus nostris) is ambiguous: it may refer to the soul's internal arrangements or to God's providential ordering. The translation opts for the former, but the Latin allows both readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in dispositionibus nostris' could mean either 'in our dispositions' (internal states) or 'in our arrangements' (actions), affecting the scope of will's precedence.","The Gospel quotations are not exact; their precise source is uncertain, though likely from the synoptic tradition or John."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":111,"ref":"p111","source":"Abraham quoque ex media gentilitate progrediens non solum cum omni familia sua ad salutem uocatur, sed etiam pater multarum gentium testimonio ipsius ueritatis efficitur. de dei bonitate est, quod uocatur, de propria uoluntate, quod promptus obsequitur. Iob quoque sine animi libertate incumbenti in se hosti non potuisset obsistere, sed iungit magnanimitatem cordis cum auxilio protectoris. ac sic iustitia remunerantis deuotionem pugnantis ostendit. in spiritali bello ita ad hominis laborem uidetur pertinere conflictus, sicut ad deum refertur euentus. amicos quoque Iob ex gentibus uenisse nondum promulgatae legis tempus ostendit et, dum pro eis idem Iob praecipiente domino supplicasse et exauditus esse memoratur, his quoque adhuc in gentilitate uiuentibus salus indubitata confertur. Rahab quoque in tantum nationis gentiliciae fuit, ut ex gentibus congregandae typum praeferret. ecclesiae. haec etiam in salutem cum omni domo + sua fide inoperante suscipitur, de qua legimus: fide R ah Rahab, meretrix non periit cum incredulis. unde hic extra legem positi accusantur increduli, nisi quia legem naturae, cui fides iuncta est, seruare noluerunt? unde obicitur incredulitas, nisi quia in promptu fuit credendi facultas? liberi itaque arbitrii ratio facit, ut remuneretur credens et damnetur incredulus.","english":"Abraham, advancing from the midst of paganism, is not only called to salvation together with his entire household, but is also made the father of many nations by the testimony of Truth itself. It is from God’s goodness that he is called, from his own will that he promptly obeys. Job likewise, without freedom of spirit, could not have withstood the enemy pressing upon him, but he joins magnanimity of heart with the help of a protector. And thus the justice of the rewarder reveals the devotion of the fighter. In spiritual warfare, the struggle seems to pertain to human effort, just as the outcome is referred to God. The fact that Job’s friends came from among the Gentiles, at a time when the law had not yet been promulgated, shows; and while the same Job is recorded to have prayed for them at the Lord’s command and to have been heard, salvation is conferred without doubt on these also, still living in paganism. Rahab likewise was so much of the pagan nation that she prefigured the type of the Church to be gathered from the Gentiles. She too is received into salvation with her entire household, through the working of faith, concerning whom we read: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with the unbelievers.” Why, then, are the unbelievers placed outside the law accused, except because they refused to keep the law of nature, to which faith is joined? Why is unbelief charged, except because the capacity to believe was at hand? Thus the principle of free will makes it so that the believer is rewarded and the unbeliever condemned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Abraham","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Abraham being called from paganism and becoming father of many nations echoes Genesis 12:1-3 and 17:4-6, foundational for the theme of gentile inclusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Iob","severity":"info","text":"Job's resistance with divine help and his intercession for gentile friends alludes to Job 1-2 and 42:7-9, used to illustrate free will and grace in spiritual warfare.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rahab","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'fide Rahab meretrix non periit cum incredulis' adapts Hebrews 11:31, where Rahab's faith saves her, here applied to gentile salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"legem naturae","severity":"info","text":"'Law of nature' denotes a pre-Mosaic moral order accessible to reason, a key concept in Faustus's argument for universal human capacity to believe.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gentilitas","severity":"info","text":"Faustus repeatedly uses 'gentilitas' (paganism) to frame his argument that pre-Christian gentiles could exercise free will toward faith, countering predestinarian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ac sic iustitia remunerantis deuotionem pugnantis ostendit","severity":"info","text":"This sentence summarizes the dialectic: divine justice reveals human effort, a structural pivot linking the examples of Abraham, Job, and Rahab to the conclusion on free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'fide inoperante' (line 10) is ambiguous: it could mean 'faith working' or 'faith not working'; the translation takes it as 'through the working of faith', consistent with the context of Rahab's active belief."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"Legimus in libro Geneseos: nondum enim conpleta sunt peccata Amorrhaeorum. praedicit dominus filios Israel in terra Aegypti humiliandos atque inde ad perdendas impias nationes et percipiendas promissas sedes in signis et miraculis educendos, sed hoc prius fieri non posse testatur, quam gentes, quas eis traditurus erat, peccatorum excrescentium magnitudine flagellis debitis locum faciant et extendi in se manum afflictionis extremae consummatae iniquitatis mole conpellant. ubi expectatur multiplicatio peccatorum, prauitas arguitur uoluntatum. qui gentili absoluto a lege praecepti inponit pro aequitate sententiam, legem naturae arguit fuisse calcatam, simulque longanimitas sustinentis iustitiam probatur manifestare damnantis. nemo enim moram ex moderatione permittit, qui ex praedestinatione punire disponit. nondum, inquit, inpleta sunt peccata Amorrhaeorum. dum in plenitudine peccatorum commemoratur perditionis causa, aufertur praefixae necessitatis inuidia. diuinae hoc loco patientiae agnosce uirtutem.. liberandus et subuersurus impias gentes populus Israel interim in seruitute retinetur, donec iniquitas gentium conpleatur. tam diu ultionem differt ira iudicii, quamdiu crescat in cumulum mensura peccati, ut concurrente sibi bonitate et seueritate sub uno eodemque tempore hinc absolutio filii, inde contritio exerceatur inimici.","english":"We read in the book of Genesis—for the sins of the Amorites were not yet complete—the Lord foretells that the sons of Israel are to be humbled in the land of Egypt and from there led out, through signs and miracles, to destroy the impious nations and take possession of the promised lands. But He testifies that this cannot happen before the nations, which He was to hand over to them, make way by the magnitude of their growing sins for the deserved punishments and compel, by the mass of their consummated iniquity, the hand of extreme affliction to be stretched out against them. Where the multiplication of sins is awaited, the depravity of wills is exposed. He who, setting aside the law of a precept for a pagan, imposes a sentence based on equity, proves that the law of nature has been trampled upon, and at the same time the forbearance of the one who sustains justice is shown to manifest the one who condemns. For no one who intends to punish by predestination permits a delay out of moderation. \"Not yet,\" He says, \"are the sins of the Amorites complete.\" When the cause of destruction is recalled in the fullness of sins, the reproach of a predetermined necessity is removed. Recognize here the virtue of divine patience. The people of Israel, who are to be freed and to overthrow the impious nations, are meanwhile held in servitude until the iniquity of the nations is completed. The wrath of judgment postpones vengeance for as long as the measure of sin grows into a heap, so that, with goodness and severity concurring at one and the same time, on the one hand the absolution of the son is exercised, on the other the crushing of the enemy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Legimus in libro Geneseos: nondum enim conpleta sunt peccata Amorrhaeorum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus loosely adapts Genesis 15:16, where God tells Abraham that the Amorites' sins are not yet full, justifying delayed punishment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praedestinatione","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'praedestinatione' (predestination) in a negative sense, implying a predetermined punishment that excludes mercy, contrasting with his semi-Pelagian view of divine patience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Amorrhaeorum","severity":"info","text":"The Amorites are a biblical people (Gen 15:16, Deut 1:27) often symbolizing sinful nations; Faustus uses them to illustrate delayed divine justice awaiting full iniquity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"nondum enim conpleta sunt peccata Amorrhaeorum","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative interlude in Faustus' treatise, using a scriptural example to argue that God's delay in punishing is due to human sin, not predestined necessity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"populus Israel interim in seruitute retinetur","severity":"info","text":"Faustus parallels Israel's servitude in Egypt with the delay of punishment for the Amorites, emphasizing that divine patience allows sin to accumulate before justice acts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"absolutio filii","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'absolutio filii' (absolution of the son) is ambiguous: it may refer to Israel as God's son or to a typological figure; the translation assumes the former.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'absolutio filii' could be read as the absolution of the son (Israel) or as a Christological reference; the translation takes it as Israel.","The source of the scriptural reference is unclear; it echoes Genesis but is not a direct quotation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT, QVIA ANTE GRATIAE TEMPUS AGNITIO UNIUS DEI GENTIBUS CONCESSA NON FUERIT.\n\nIn grandi profundo ignorantiae uolutantur qui dicunt, quod unius dei notitiam habere non potuerint gentes ante saluatoris aduentum, cum apostolus asserat factorem mundi per facturae suae magnificentiam potuisse cognosci ita dicendo: quod notum est dei, manifestum est in illis. inuisibilia enim eius a creatura mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas, ut sint inexcusabiles. quomodo tu excusabiles dicis eo, quod alieni fuerint a caelestibus donis, quos deus ex hoc inexcusabiles protestatur, quod abusi probentur acceptis et opificis sublimitatem sine difficultate scire potuissent, si opus interrogassent? longe est hoc ab omni ratione absque pietate, ut homo ad agnoscendum deum nuper putetur eruditus, cui uniuersus ab exordio rerum testis est mundus, et ideo in eadem epistola (apostolus) dicit: cum enim gentes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter quae legis sunt faciunt. non ergo recenti magisterio ad conprehendendam legem dei credatur inbutus, qui id, quod naturaliter habet, in primi utique hominis conditione percepit. inmutauerunt, inquit apostolus, gloriam incorruptibilis dei in similitudinem imaginis (corruptibilis hominis) et uolucrum et quadripedum et serpentium.","english":"Against this, what they say, that before the time of grace knowledge of the one God was not granted to the Gentiles.\n\nThey wallow in a great depth of ignorance who say that the Gentiles could not have had knowledge of the one God before the coming of the Savior, since the Apostle asserts that the maker of the world could have been known through the magnificence of his own creation, saying: \"What is known of God is manifest in them.\" For his invisible attributes are understood and perceived from the creation of the world through the things that have been made. His eternal power and divinity also, so that they are inexcusable. How can you call excusable those whom God declares inexcusable on the ground that they are proven to have abused what they received and could have known the sublimity of the maker without difficulty, if they had questioned the work? This is far from all reason, and without piety, that man should be thought to have been recently instructed to know God, to whom the whole world from the beginning of things is a witness; and therefore in the same epistle the Apostle says: \"For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, naturally do the things that are of the law.\" Therefore, he is not believed to have been imbued by recent teaching to comprehend the law of God, who received what he naturally has in the condition of the first man. \"They changed,\" says the Apostle, \"the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts and serpents.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quod notum est dei, manifestum est in illis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Romans 1:19, which in the Vulgate reads 'quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis.' The phrase supports his argument that natural knowledge of God was available to Gentiles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cum enim gentes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter quae legis sunt faciunt","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Romans 2:14, where Paul notes that Gentiles without the law naturally perform acts of the law. Faustus uses it to argue for innate moral knowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"inmutauerunt ... gloriam incorruptibilis dei in similitudinem imaginis ... et uolucrum et quadripedum et serpentium","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Romans 1:23, which condemns idolatry. Faustus cites it to show that Gentiles, despite knowing God, corrupted that knowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"inexcusabiles","severity":"info","text":"Faustus uses 'inexcusabiles' (from Romans 1:20) to argue that Gentiles are morally accountable for failing to recognize God through creation, countering claims of pre-grace ignorance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"in grandi profundo ignorantiae uolutantur","severity":"info","text":"This vivid metaphor reflects Faustus's polemical style against semi-Pelagian opponents who argued that knowledge of God was impossible before Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CONTRA HOC, QVOD DICUNT","severity":"info","text":"This opening phrase signals a direct refutation of an opposing view, a common rhetorical structure in Faustus's treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact source of the first scripture quotation ('quod notum est dei, manifestum est in illis') is unclear; it may be a loose citation of Romans 1:19 or a variant in Faustus's manuscript tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":114,"ref":"p114","source":"Dum inprudens abiecta et indigna ueneratur, debuisse se omnimodis cultum dignioribus profitetur, dumque lignum adorat et lapidem, in promptu habuit, ut saperet adorare terrestrium et caelestium conditorem. nam dum homo colendum esse aliquid probat, ipse intellectus colendi crimen conditoris ostendit. quomodo enim religionis habuit sensum? inuenisset absque dubio deum, si inquirendi adponere uoluisset affectum dicente domino: quaerite et inuenietis. cum enim mens humana ad uidendum oculos aperuerit, statim se desideranti quaesita lux ingerit. ideoque lex intus inserta docuit uenerationem, sed neglegentia et contumacia inuenire non meruit ueritatem. et propterea dum se mortuis simulacris et figuris insensibilibus figmentum caeleste prosternit, iniuriam non solum factori, sed et in se facturae suae intulit et erubescendis semet ipsum contumeliis propriae inmemor generositatis affecit atque ex errore ipso poenam recepit erroris, sicut ait apostolus: et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semet ipsos recipientes. et sicut non probauerunt deum habere in notitia, tradidit eos deus in reprobum sensum. hic rebellis sensus sponte corruptus non uiolenter ablatus est. sicut, inquit, non probauerunt deum habere in notitia, tradidit eos deus in reprobum sensum. qui pro causis praecedentibus derelinquitur, non fato premitur, sed iudicio reprobatur.","english":"While the imprudent man venerates base and unworthy things, he declares that he ought by all means to profess worship to more worthy beings, and while he adores wood and stone, he had readily at hand the means to know to adore the creator of earthly and heavenly things. For while man proves that something is to be worshipped, the very understanding of worship reveals the crime against the creator. For how did he have the sense of religion? He would have found God without doubt, if he had wished to apply the effort of inquiry, as the Lord says: seek and you will find. For when the human mind opens its eyes to see, the sought light immediately presents itself to the one desiring it. And therefore the law implanted within taught veneration, but negligence and contumacy did not merit finding the truth. And for that reason, while it prostrates the celestial creation before dead images and insensible figures, it inflicted injury not only on the maker, but also on its own making, and afflicted itself with shameful contumelies, forgetful of its own nobility, and from that error itself received the penalty of error, as the apostle says: and they received in themselves the reward which their error deserved. And just as they did not acknowledge God in their knowledge, God delivered them to a reprobate mind. This rebellious mind was spontaneously corrupted, not violently taken away. Just as, he says, they did not acknowledge God in their knowledge, God delivered them to a reprobate mind. He who is abandoned because of preceding causes is not oppressed by fate, but is reprobated by judgment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quaerite et inuenietis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'seek and you will find' echoes Matthew 7:7 and John 16:24, but is not a direct Vulgate citation; it may be a loose recollection or a common patristic tag.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semet ipsos recipientes","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Romans 2:9, where Paul speaks of those who receive the reward of their error. Faustus adapts the wording to his argument about idolatry.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"reprobum sensum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'reprobum sensum' (reprobate mind) is a key term in Faustus's anthropology, denoting a willful corruption of the intellect that leads to divine abandonment, not predestined fate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"lex intus inserta","severity":"info","text":"The 'law implanted within' reflects Stoic and Ciceronian concepts of natural law, adapted by Christian authors to argue that even pagans had an innate capacity to know God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut ... tradidit eos deus in reprobum sensum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus repeats the same clause twice, first as a statement and then as a quotation, reinforcing his argument that divine reprobation follows from human negligence, not fate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"dum inprudens abiecta et indigna ueneratur","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin syntax is convoluted; the subject 'inprudens' (imprudent man) is implied but not explicit, and the clause may be read as a generalizing masculine singular or as a neuter abstraction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'inprudens' could be read as a substantive adjective ('the imprudent one') or as an implied masculine noun; the translation takes it as a generic singular. The repetition of 'sicut ... tradidit eos deus in reprobum sensum' may be a scribal doublet or a deliberate rhetorical echo."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":115,"ref":"p115","source":"Quod si requiras, unde indoctis nationibus in illa ingenita feritate peccatum, unde nisi per animi motum mentisque consensum? denique pecudes et bruta animantia a peccato omnimodis libera sunt, quia discretionis nescia et rationis ignara sunt. tu deteriorem pecude hominem facis. cur enim ei relinquis peccatum, cui tollis arbitrium? aut si eum subdis peccato, noli priuare iudicio. non ergo mentiatur iniquitas sibi. nouit, quid in occulto homini dederit cognitor occultorum. et ideo quando ab eo quisque pro malo opere corripitur et condemnatur, bonum facere potuisse conuincitur. magua est ergo uis animi in utramque partem, dum et super honestate confunditur et super inhonestate confunditur. et ideo dicitur per prophetam: palpebrae eius interrogant filios hominum, dominus interrogat iustum et impium. quid me iudicis natus interrogat de peccato, si suae definitionis est, quod delinquo? itaque qui finxit singillatim corda hominum, uias hominum et merita conscientiarum secretus discussor interrogat. sed si te et ipse discutias, si quando in sinistram declinare uoluisti, nonne trepida conscientia, ne peccares, admonuit? nonne te uelut censor occultus tristis cogitatio castigauit? ac sic homines se ipsos latere non possunt testimonium reddente illis conscientia et inter se cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam defendentibus.","english":"If you ask whence comes sin to untaught nations in their innate savagery, whence except through a movement of the spirit and consent of the mind? Finally, cattle and brute animals are wholly free from sin, because they are ignorant of discernment and devoid of reason. You make man worse than a beast. For why do you leave him sin, while you take away his free choice? Or if you subject him to sin, do not deprive him of judgment. Therefore let iniquity not lie to itself. The Knower of hidden things knows what He gave to man in secret. And so when anyone is rebuked and condemned for an evil deed, he is convicted of having been able to do good. Great, therefore, is the power of the spirit in either direction, while it is both ashamed of honor and ashamed of dishonor. And so it is said through the prophet: His eyelids interrogate the sons of men; the Lord interrogates the just and the unjust. Why does a judge by birth interrogate me about sin, if it is by His own definition that I transgress? Thus He who fashioned the hearts of men one by one, the secret examiner, interrogates the ways of men and the merits of consciences. But if you yourself examine yourself, if ever you wished to turn to the left, did not a trembling conscience warn you not to sin? Did not a sad thought chastise you like a secret censor? And thus men cannot hide from themselves, with conscience bearing witness to them and with thoughts accusing or even defending among themselves.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"per animi motum mentisque consensum","severity":"info","text":"Faustus locates the origin of sin in a movement of the spirit and consent of the mind, emphasizing the role of human agency and rational will, which is central to his anti-Pelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"arbitrium","severity":"info","text":"Arbitrium here denotes free choice or free will, a key term in the grace–free will debate. Faustus insists that sin implies the presence of free choice, against those who would deny it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"palpebrae eius interrogant filios hominum","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes a biblical passage, likely from the Psalms or Prophets, though the exact source is uncertain. It illustrates God’s intimate scrutiny of human actions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor occultorum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Knower of hidden things' reflects a common patristic epithet for God, emphasizing divine omniscience, which Faustus uses to argue that God knows human capacity for good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"sed si te et ipse discutias","severity":"info","text":"Faustus shifts to a direct address, using a rhetorical question to engage the reader in self-examination, reinforcing his argument for innate moral conscience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"conscientia","severity":"info","text":"The role of conscience as an internal witness and judge parallels themes in Augustine and later medieval thought, though Faustus emphasizes its universal operation even in the untaught.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical source of 'palpebrae eius interrogant filios hominum' is not identified in the text; it may be a loose citation or paraphrase.","The phrase 'super honestate confunditur et super inhonestate confunditur' is ambiguous: it may mean shame in both virtuous and vicious contexts, or confusion between them."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Inter haec si requiras, ubi sit libertas arbitrii posita, ubi sit uoluntas hominis constituta, [et] ubi nisi in intellectu, in ratione atque sapientia? quae cum ita sint, prius necesse habebis homini negare sapientiam, auferre rationem, ut adimere liberam ualeas uoluntatem. quam ob rem si quando delictum aliquod anima intra domicilium suum captiua meditatur, reclamant ei cogitationum secreta, interdicunt ei intrinsecus officia sua, sed uires subtrahit resistendi consuetudo peccandi. sed reuoluis et dicis, quod mali et qui ad perditionem trahuntur non acceperint arbitrii libertatem. primum scire debemus, quia libertas arbitrii duplici ministerio praedita est, nunc ad salutem, nunc ad perditionem sui prompta est. sed obponis, quod uoluntatis libertas solis conpetat liberandis et in redemptionis beneficio constitutis. non ita est. liberatio ad donum gratiae et ad propositum consentientis pertinet uitae, libertas uero arbitrii non est res accedentis munificentiae, sed naturae. quaerentibus illa uel tribuitur uel conseruatur, etiam non requirentibus ista confertur. illa renascentibus ministratur, ista nascentibus. libertas ad solam dei pertinet operationem, liberatio et ad subditi hominis seruitutem. illa bonis confirmata, ista et malis insita est. illa adquisitis et perseuerantibus conpetit, ista et perditis suppetit. illa condentis, ista et oboedientis est.","english":"Amid these things, if you ask where the freedom of the will is placed, where the will of man is established, where if not in the intellect, in reason and wisdom? Since these things are so, you will first have to deny wisdom to man, to take away reason, in order to be able to take away free will. For this reason, if ever the soul, captive within its own dwelling, meditates some offense, the secrets of its thoughts cry out against it, its inner offices forbid it, but the habit of sinning withdraws the strength to resist. But you turn back and say that the wicked and those who are drawn to perdition have not received the freedom of the will. First we must know that the freedom of the will is endowed with a twofold service, now ready for salvation, now ready for its own perdition. But you object that the freedom of the will pertains only to those who are to be freed and to those established in the benefit of redemption. It is not so. Liberation pertains to the gift of grace and to the purpose of the consenting life, but the freedom of the will is not a matter of an arriving beneficence, but of nature. To those who seek it, the former is either granted or preserved; the latter is conferred even to those not seeking it. The former is ministered to the reborn, the latter to the born. Freedom pertains to the operation of God alone; liberation pertains also to the service of the subject man. The former is confirmed in the good, the latter is implanted even in the wicked. The former befits those who have acquired and persevere, the latter is available even to the lost. The former is of the one who establishes, the latter also of the one who obeys.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libertas arbitrii","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes libertas arbitrii (freedom of the will) from liberatio (liberation). The former is a natural endowment, the latter a gift of grace. This distinction is central to his anti-Pelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage builds a series of antitheses: libertas vs. liberatio, nature vs. grace, the born vs. the reborn, the good vs. the wicked. This rhetorical structure reinforces Faustus’s claim that free will is universal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustus here responds to the view that free will belongs only to the redeemed, a position associated with the stricter Augustinianism of his opponents in the Gallic controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"consuetudo peccandi","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'habit of sinning' echoes a common patristic theme: sin weakens the will by repetition, but does not destroy its natural freedom. Faustus uses it to explain moral failure without denying free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text includes '[et]' in brackets, indicating a textual uncertainty. The English draft omits it; the sense is unaffected whether or not the conjunction is original.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'duplici ministerio' could mean 'twofold service' or 'twofold ministry'; the translation adopts 'service' to avoid ecclesiological overtones."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":117,"ref":"p117","source":"illa potentiae, ista est misericordiae. illa originis et generis, ista est muneris et uirtutis.\n\nXI. GENTES DEUM NATURALITBR SAPUISSE.\n\nPlenus spiritu sancto propheta Daniel sciens deum in sensu hominis appetitum boni maliue posuisse, ita Nabucodonosor alloquitur dicens: quamobrem consilium meum placeat tibi o rex, et peccata tua elimosynis redime et iniquitates tuas miserationibus pauperum. et peccata, inquit, tua elimosynis redime. praefixum uideri non potest, quidquid redimi potest. a sanitate utique non excluditur, cui remedium persuadetur. simulque ei arbitrium non negatur, cui consensus exigitur. liberi animi officium non amisit, qui probatur suscipere potuisse consilium. a salute alienus non inuenitur, cui materia salutis ingeritur. et cui offert propheta conparandae indulgentiae occasionem, inesse ei uoluntatis asserit potestatem.","english":"that of power, this of mercy. That of origin and kind, this of gift and virtue.\n\nXI. THAT THE NATIONS HAVE KNOWN GOD NATURALLY.\n\nFull of the Holy Spirit, the prophet Daniel, knowing that God has placed in man's mind the appetite for good and evil, thus addresses Nebuchadnezzar, saying: \"Why, O king, may my counsel please you, and redeem your sins with alms and your iniquities with mercies to the poor.\" And he says, \"Redeem your sins with alms.\" Whatever can be redeemed cannot be seen as predetermined. Certainly, he is not excluded from health to whom a remedy is urged. At the same time, free will is not denied to him from whom consent is required. He has not lost the office of a free mind who is judged to have been able to receive counsel. He is not found alien to salvation to whom the material of salvation is presented. And to whom the prophet offers the opportunity of obtaining forgiveness, he asserts that the power of will is present in him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XI. GENTES DEUM NATURALITBR SAPUISSE.","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading is corrupt: 'NATURALITBR' is a scribal error for 'NATURALITER' (naturally). The heading asserts that the nations knew God by natural reason, a key theme in Faustus's argument against semi-Pelagian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Daniel 4:24 (Vulgate)","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Daniel's advice to Nebuchadnezzar: 'peccata tua eleemosynis redime' (redeem your sins with alms). The Vulgate text (Dan. 4:24) reads 'peccata tua eleemosynis redime' but in a different context; Faustus reworks it to support free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"arbitrium","severity":"info","text":"'Arbitrium' (free will) is a central term in the debate on grace and free will. Faustus argues that requiring consent implies the presence of free will, countering predestinarian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Nebuchadnezzar","severity":"info","text":"Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, is a biblical figure (Dan. 1–4) often used in patristic literature as an example of pride and repentance. Faustus invokes him to illustrate that even a pagan king can be called to moral reform, implying universal human capacity for free will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustus of Riez","severity":"info","text":"Faustus's defense of free will here was later criticized by Augustine's followers as semi-Pelagian. The passage was cited in the 5th–6th century controversies, notably in the Council of Orange (529), which condemned views that overemphasized human initiative in salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The chapter heading 'NATURALITBR' is a scribal corruption; the intended reading is 'NATURALITER' (naturally).","The exact biblical source of Daniel's address is unclear; it may be a conflation of Dan. 4:24 and 4:27."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":118,"ref":"p118","source":"Sed et hoc, quod Baltasar gentilis arguitur dicente propheta: laudasti deos argenteos et aureos et ligneos et lapideos et deum, in cuius manu flatus tuus est, non laudasti. uides, quia hic alienigena deum et scire potuit et laudare, sed noluit. inesse homini intellectum dei pariter et cultum . ideo propheta memorauit, quia legem naturae indiscrete intra omnis hominis sensum uigere cognouit. et propterea cum praefato Nabucodonosor regi Daniel uim somnii reuelasset, deum se non ignorare quamlibet profanus ostendit ita dicens: uere deus uester deus deorum est et dominus regum. sed et Darium quis ita de deo sentire et loqui docuit, nisi uis rationis et legis cum Daniele? deum conuersione placari .. ......................\n\nXII. (DE NENIUITIS).\n\n....... unde fuit, quod deum cum conditione cognouit irasci? non enim magna illa ciuitas Ionae eruditione resipiuit nec eius monitis intellectum petendae salutis accepit nec docuit populum propheta, sed terruit, nec misericordiam promisit, sed inmutabilem sententiam nuntiauit, et tamen urbs illa, sicut scriptum est contra spem in spem credidit. atque ipsa sibimet remedia quodammodo interdicta promisit multum placitura deo, etiamsi promissa quaesisset.","english":"But also this, that Baltasar, a Gentile, is reproached by the prophet saying: you have praised gods of silver and gold and wood and stone, and the god in whose hand your breath is, you have not praised. You see, this foreigner was able both to know and to praise God, but he was unwilling. The understanding of God and worship are inherent in man. Therefore the prophet recalled this, because he knew that the law of nature thrives without distinction within the sense of every man. And for this reason, when Daniel had revealed the meaning of the dream to the aforementioned King Nebuchadnezzar, the king, however profane, showed that he did not ignore God, speaking thus: truly your God is the god of gods and the lord of kings. But also Darius, who taught him to think and speak thus about God, if not the force of reason and law with Daniel? God is appeased by conversion.\n\nXII. (CONCERNING THE NINEVITES).\n\nWhence came it, that they knew God to be angry with a condition? For that great city did not come to its senses through the instruction of Jonah, nor did it receive from his warnings the understanding of seeking salvation, nor did the prophet teach the people, but terrified them, nor did he promise mercy, but announced an immutable sentence, and yet that city, as it is written, believed against hope in hope. And it promised to itself remedies, in a manner of speaking forbidden, which would be very pleasing to God, even if it had sought the promises.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"laudasti deos argenteos et aureos et ligneos et lapideos et deum, in cuius manu flatus tuus est, non laudasti","severity":"info","text":"Faustus adapts Daniel 5:4 (LXX), where Daniel rebukes Belshazzar for praising false gods while neglecting the true God. The Latin wording closely follows the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"uere deus uester deus deorum est et dominus regum","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Nebuchadnezzar's confession in Daniel 2:47 (LXX), though the phrasing is not verbatim from the Vulgate. Faustus uses it to illustrate natural knowledge of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"contra spem in spem credidit","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to the repentance of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5-10, where the city believed Jonah's warning despite its hopelessness. Faustus emphasizes conversion without prior instruction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Baltasar","severity":"info","text":"Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, appears in Daniel 5. Faustus uses him as a Gentile who could know God but chose not to, supporting the argument for natural knowledge of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Darium","severity":"info","text":"Darius the Mede, mentioned in Daniel 6, is cited by Faustus as another Gentile ruler who, through reason and Daniel's influence, came to acknowledge God. The reference supports the theme of natural theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XII. (DE NENIUITIS)","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks a new section on the Ninevites, continuing Faustus' argument that even pagans can recognize God's anger and seek conversion, as in Jonah 3.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has a lacuna after 'placari' (marked by dots), and the section heading 'XII. (DE NENIUITIS)' is partially reconstructed. The reading assumes the Ninevites are the subject of the following passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"Quae quidem remedia ideo interdum a domino supprimuntur, ut uiolentius adquisita seruentur. simulque interposita obtinendi difficultate dum munificentia absconditur, fides probatur, exercetur ambitus, manifestatur affectus, totumque hoc in homine ignis interior a deo insitus et ab homine cum dei gratia nutritus operatur. ostendit itaque gens illa ea, quae saluti hominis conpetunt, ipsa ordinatione facturae deum intra hominem conlocasse et ante munera redemptoris circa rationabilem creaturam semper auctoris dona uiguisse a conditore quidem summo praestita per naturam, sed confirmanda per gratiam. per , gratiam, inquam, in cuius tempore praeteritorum salus erat consummanda saeculorum, quia nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex uel litterae uel naturae. in Neniuitis ergo euidenter manifestata est clementiae et bonitatis plena uox domini ita dicentis: repente loquar ad gentem et regnum, ut euellam et destruam et eradicem. si gens illa paenitentiam egerit pro peccato suo, et ego paenitentiam agam super malo, quod locutus sum, ut facerem ei. optat iudex misericors caelestis decreta consilii pio inmutare mendacio, si reus medicinam festinet adhibere peccato. inuitus homini pondus damnationis inponit, qui remedium satisfactionis ostendit et sedulae obsequium seruitutis expectat.","english":"These remedies are indeed sometimes withheld by the Lord so that they may be preserved more intensely when acquired. And at the same time, by the difficulty of obtaining them interposed, while the munificence is hidden, faith is tested, ambition is exercised, affection is manifested, and all this in man is worked by the inner fire placed in him by God and nourished by man with God's grace. That people therefore shows that those things which pertain to man's salvation were placed within man by God through the very ordering of creation, and that before the gifts of the Redeemer, the gifts of the Author always flourished around the rational creature, bestowed indeed by the supreme Creator through nature, but to be confirmed through grace. Through grace, I say, in whose time the salvation of past ages was to be consummated, because nothing was brought to perfection by the law, whether of the letter or of nature. In the Ninevites, therefore, the voice of the Lord, full of clemency and goodness, is clearly manifested, speaking thus: I will speak suddenly to the people and the kingdom, that I may uproot and destroy and eradicate. If that people does penance for its sin, then I also will do penance for the evil that I have spoken, that I would do to it. The merciful judge chooses to change the heavenly decrees of the council by a pious falsehood, if the defendant hastens to apply medicine to the sin. Unwillingly does he impose the weight of condemnation on man, he who shows the remedy of satisfaction and awaits the diligent obedience of service.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ignis interior","severity":"info","text":"The 'inner fire' is a metaphor for the natural human capacity for virtue, implanted by God and nourished by grace, reflecting Faustus's semi-Pelagian view of cooperation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"repente loquar ad gentem et regnum","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of God's warning to Nineveh in the book of Jonah (3:4, 3:9-10), though not a direct Vulgate quotation; Faustus adapts the narrative to illustrate divine clemency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Neniuitis","severity":"info","text":"The Ninevites are used as a biblical exemplum of repentance and divine mercy, a common trope in patristic literature to argue for human free will and God's conditional grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratiam","severity":"info","text":"Faustus distinguishes between nature (given by the Creator) and grace (which confirms and perfects), a key distinction in his semi-Pelagian argument against predestinarian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"per gratiam, inquam","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a rhetorical pause to emphasize the role of grace in completing salvation history, linking the Old Testament example to the New Testament economy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"pio inmutare mendacio","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'pious falsehood' is ambiguous: it may mean God feigns a change of decree to test repentance, or it may reflect a rhetorical exaggeration; Faustus's orthodoxy on divine truthfulness is debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'pio inmutare mendacio' could be read as God's merciful deception or as a rhetorical figure; the translation opts for 'pious falsehood' but the Latin allows a less literal interpretation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"et ideo perfecta illa prouidentia, quae in hoc saeculo uirtutum exercitiis delectatur, ordinatissimum et sapientia sua dignissimum iudicauit, ut hominem conditum ad sacrae imaginis dignitatem hic prius agonibus et contritionibus exploraret, illic uero donis et retributionibus adinpleret, ut, cum famulus exhibuisset in labore oboedientiam, dominus ostenderet in remuneratione iustitiam, ut, cum infirmitas humana obtulisset humilem deuotionem, ineffabilem diuina potentia exereret largitatem.\n\nIugiter ergo laborandum, sed a gratia non recedendum et dicendum: deus, in adiutorium meum intende. ipsum ergo adiutorii uocabulum laborantis requirit officium. adiutorii itaque sermo duos indicat, operantem et cooperantem, petentem et promittentem, pulsantem et aperientem, quaerentem pariter et retribuentem. hoc solum nostrum est, ut, qui pro fragilitate idonei non sumus, saltim quaerendi et pulsandi inportunitate placeamus. ubi erit sedulitas miserentis dei, si, cum persona nihil mereatur indigni, ad hoc desideria accedant otiosi? et ideo nisi obsequendi studium oboedientia indefessa praetulerit, locum remanendi iustitia non habebit. et propterea sermo diuinus in spe laboris sui positum describit agricolam ita dicens: ecce agricola expectat pretiosum terrae fructum, ut recipiat temporiuum et serotinum.","english":"And therefore that perfect providence, which in this world delights in the exercises of the virtues, judged it most orderly and most worthy of its wisdom that man, established in the dignity of the sacred image, should here first be tested by struggles and afflictions, but there be fulfilled by gifts and rewards, so that when the servant had shown obedience in labor, the master might show justice in recompense, so that when human weakness had offered humble devotion, divine power might display ineffable generosity.\n\nTherefore we must labor continually, but not depart from grace, and we must say: God, direct your help to me. Indeed, the very word \"help\" requires the office of one who labors. Thus the term \"help\" indicates two persons: one working and one cooperating, one asking and one promising, one knocking and one opening, one seeking and likewise one rewarding. This alone is ours: that we, who are not fit due to frailty, may at least please by the importunity of seeking and knocking. Where will the diligence of the merciful God be, if, when the person of the unworthy merits nothing, desires come to him who is idle? And therefore, unless the zeal of service and indefatigable obedience have preceded, justice will have no place to remain. And for this reason, the divine word describes the farmer placed in the hope of his labor, saying thus: Behold, the farmer awaits the precious fruit of the earth, that he may receive the early and the late rain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"perfecta illa prouidentia","severity":"info","text":"Faustus personifies providence as delighting in the exercises of virtues, framing the human condition as a test of obedience and reward, a key theme in his semi-Pelagian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"adiutorium","severity":"info","text":"The term 'help' (adiutorium) is analyzed as implying two agents: the laborer and the cooperator. This reflects Faustus's view that grace and human effort are cooperative, not solely divine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ecce agricola expectat pretiosum terrae fructum","severity":"info","text":"The farmer awaiting rain echoes agricultural imagery from the Old Testament, possibly Joel 2:23 or similar passages, though not a direct quotation; Faustus adapts it to illustrate human hope and divine reward.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"agonibus et contritionibus","severity":"info","text":"The pairing of 'struggles and afflictions' (agonibus et contritionibus) reflects ascetic ideals in 5th-century Gaul, where Faustus wrote, emphasizing spiritual combat as preparation for grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Iugiter ergo laborandum","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from a theological statement to an exhortation, using 'Iugiter ergo' to mark a logical conclusion, typical of Faustus's rhetorical style in De Gratia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'temporiuum et serotinum' (early and late rain) is ambiguous: it may refer to two harvests or two rains; the translation adopts the latter, consistent with agricultural context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":121,"ref":"p121","source":"quid est temporiuum, quid serotinum P temporiui fractus sunt, quos stipendiis militiae praesentis adquirimus. serotini sunt, quos post emeritam seruitutem in illius saeculi retributione capiemus. temporiui sunt fides atque sinceritas cordis, beniuolentia, corporis temperantia, contemptus mali, appetitus boni, tranquillitas mansuetudinis, puritas castitatis. serotini fructus sunt adquisitio rerum inmortalium, hereditas caelestium, proprietas aeternorum, de quibus dicitur: nec oculos uidit nec auris audiuit nec in cor hominis ascendit, quae praeparauit deus his, qui diligunt illum. de quibus per apostolos et martyres dicitur: non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae reuelabitur in nobis. temporiui itaque fructus in uirtutibus sunt, serotini in remuneratione uirtutum. temporiui sunt, quos hic opera capiunt in praeceptis, serotini, quos illic uota consequentur in praemiis.","english":"What is early, what is late? The early fruits are those which we acquire by the wages of our present service. The late fruits are those which we will seize in the reward of that age after our service has been completed. The early fruits are faith and sincerity of heart, benevolence, temperance of the body, contempt for evil, desire for good, the tranquility of gentleness, the purity of chastity. The late fruits are the acquisition of immortal things, the inheritance of heavenly things, the possession of eternal things, concerning which it is said: neither the eye has seen nor the ear heard nor has it entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love him. Concerning which it is said through the apostles and martyrs: the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the future glory which will be revealed in us. Therefore the early fruits are in the virtues, the late fruits in the reward of the virtues. The early fruits are those which works here seize in the precepts, the late fruits are those which vows will pursue there in the rewards.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"temporiui / serotini","severity":"info","text":"The terms 'temporiui' (early) and 'serotini' (late) are drawn from agricultural imagery, contrasting fruits gathered in the present life with those reaped in the afterlife.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nec oculos uidit nec auris audiuit nec in cor hominis ascendit","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes a common patristic expression based on Psalm 78:3 (LXX) or similar biblical language, though not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam","severity":"info","text":"This alludes to Romans 8:18, where Paul contrasts present sufferings with future glory, though the wording is adapted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"stipendiis militiae praesentis","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of 'military wages' reflects early Christian and monastic language of spiritual warfare, common in ascetic treatises.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as a series of parallel contrasts between early and late fruits, culminating in a summary that distinguishes virtues from their rewards.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'per apostolos et martyres' may indicate either authorship or mediation; the reading taken is that the saying is transmitted through them."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"Quantum ergo delectetur deus, si fecerimus murum, id est ualidissimum contra offensam dei supplicationis obstaculum, sicut fecit ille, de quo legimus: properauit enim homo sine querella deprecari pro populo proferens seruitutis suae scutum, restitit irae et finem inposuit necessitati. qui staret, inquit, oppositus contra me propterea, ne disperderem eam. qui ostendit, quomodo eius ira superetur, quodam modo placatus irascitur. inter haec quicumque a potentissimo ac iustissimo conditore ita factum hominem dicit, ut unus in sinistram sine proprio crimine inpulsu tantum praescientiae deputetur, alter in dexteram indiscussis meritis adtrahatur, hoc aperte asserere deprehenditur inordinatas uel iniquas esse dispositiones et factoris et iudicis.\n\nSed hoc loco sollicitus intendat auditor auctori summo, cum hominem plasmare disponeret, auctori, inquam, summo in ministerium et consilium hominis fabricandi quattuor astitere uirtutes. quae quattuor? potentia utique, bonitas, sapientia atque iustitia. tu uide, quam deo ex his quattuor defuisse praesumas asserere. itaque ad intellectum euidentius colligendum proferant, si placet, singulae istae uirtutes quasi tractatus et adlocutiones suas. potentia dicat: faciamus post caeli regnum in secundis mirabilem creaturam, ne in imperii nostri possessione, quae prima sunt, haec etiam uideantur extrema.","english":"How much, then, does God delight, if we make a wall, that is, a very strong barrier of supplication against the offense of God, as did that man of whom we read: for the man hastened without complaint to intercede for the people, proffering the shield of his service, he withstood the wrath and put an end to the necessity. \"Who would stand,\" he said, \"opposed against me, lest I destroy her?\" He shows how His wrath is overcome, how in a certain way, placated, He becomes angry. Amid these things, whoever says that man was so made by the most powerful and just Creator that one is assigned to the left without his own fault, by the mere impulse of foreknowledge, and another is drawn to the right by unquestioned merits, is clearly understood to assert that the arrangements of both the maker and the judge are disordered or unjust.\n\nBut at this point, let the attentive hearer consider the supreme Author, when He was preparing to fashion man, the supreme Author, I say, to whose ministry and counsel for making man four virtues attended. Which four? Surely, power, goodness, wisdom, and justice. You see which of these four you presume to assert was lacking to God. Therefore, to gather the understanding more clearly, let each of these virtues, if you please, put forward their own treatises and addresses. Let Power say: let us make, after the kingdom of heaven, a second wonderful creature, lest in the possession of our empire, which are the first, these also seem to be the last.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"properauit enim homo sine querella deprecari pro populo proferens seruitutis suae scutum","severity":"info","text":"The allusion is likely to Phinehas (Numbers 25:7-8) or a similar intercessor; the phrase 'shield of his service' echoes Psalm 91:4 (LXX) but is not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"murum","severity":"info","text":"'Murum' (wall) is a metaphor for a spiritual barrier of supplication, possibly drawn from Nehemiah's rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls or from patristic exegesis of the 'wall of faith'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"quattuor uirtutes","severity":"info","text":"The four virtues (power, goodness, wisdom, justice) reflect a Platonic or Stoic schema adapted by Christian authors like Ambrose and Augustine to describe divine attributes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed hoc loco sollicitus intendat auditor","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a rhetorical shift from a scriptural exemplum to a theological argument about divine justice, using prosopopoeia (personification of virtues) to refute predestinarian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"in sinistram ... in dexteram","severity":"info","text":"The left/right imagery for damnation and salvation echoes Matthew 25:33 and was used in early Christian art and theology, notably in the Shepherd of Hermas and later in Faustus's anti-predestinarian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quodam modo placatus irascitur","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'placated, He becomes angry' is paradoxical; it may reflect a textual corruption or a deliberate oxymoron to express God's complex response to intercession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'ille' (the man who intercedes) is not specified; it may be Phinehas, Moses, or another biblical figure.","The phrase 'quodam modo placatus irascitur' is ambiguous: it could mean God's anger is transformed by placation, or that placation itself provokes anger."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":123,"ref":"p123","source":"istam speciosam mundi machinam consummemus, ut in ea hominem faciamus, et praeficiamus, per quem mundus ordinetur, possideatur, ornetur. bonitas dicat: fas non est, ut sola beneficiis nostris caelestia perfruantur. faciamus et in terra hominem, circa quem abundantiam gratiae nostrae exerceamus, circa quem beniuolentiae munera dilatemus, in quem pietatis ingenitae diuitias profundamus. sapientia dicat: non solum faciamus, sed etiam sensu rationis ac discretionis honoremus, prudentiae lumine repleamus, faciamus simplicem, faciamus astutum. simplicem, ne malum callidus inferat, astutum, ne incautus incurrat. insinuemus ei affectum boni, intellectum mali et iuxta gubernationem nostram permittamus eum in manu consilii sui ac proprii in libertate iudicii.\n\nTractat inter haec secum potentia, cui inest et praescientia. quid agimus, quod eum, si arbitrio suo permittimus liberum, in peccati deuia praenoscimus transiturum et pretiosae dona facturae conuersurum esse praeuidemus ad instrumenta nequitiae? et ideo si opus in eo nostrum uolumus esse perpetuum, tollamus ei de potestate peccatum. dicit iustitia: non ita est. non conpetit legibus nostris, ut is, quem a contrariis oportet probari, de uiribus suis non possit agnosci.","english":"Let us complete this beautiful machine of the world, so that in it we may make man, and set him over it, through whom the world may be ordered, possessed, and adorned. Goodness says: It is not right that only the heavenly beings should enjoy our benefits. Let us also make man on earth, on whom we may exercise the abundance of our grace, on whom we may lavish the gifts of our benevolence, into whom we may pour the riches of our innate piety. Wisdom says: Let us not only make him, but also honor him with the sense of reason and discernment, fill him with the light of prudence, make him simple, make him shrewd. Simple, so that he may not cunningly inflict evil; shrewd, so that he may not rashly fall into it. Let us instill in him an affection for good, an understanding of evil, and, under our governance, let us leave him in the hand of his own counsel and in the freedom of his own judgment.\n\nMeanwhile, Power, in whom foreknowledge also resides, deliberates within itself. What are we doing, if we leave him free in his own will, when we foresee that he will stray into the byways of sin and that he will turn the precious gifts of our creation into instruments of wickedness? And therefore, if we wish our work in him to be perpetual, let us remove from him the power to sin. Justice says: It is not so. It does not accord with our laws that he, who must be tested by opposites, should not be able to know himself from his own strengths.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"bonitas ... sapientia ... potentia ... iustitia","severity":"info","text":"The passage dramatizes a divine council with personified attributes (Goodness, Wisdom, Power, Justice) debating human creation and free will, a rhetorical device common in late antique theological dialogues.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"in manu consilii sui ac proprii in libertate iudicii","severity":"info","text":"This phrase encapsulates Faustus's semi-Pelagian view: humans possess freedom of judgment and counsel under divine governance, a key point in the grace controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"tollamus ei de potestate peccatum","severity":"info","text":"Power's proposal to remove the ability to sin echoes the Pelagian position that God could have made humans sinless, which Faustus rejects through Justice's response.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"simplicem, ne malum callidus inferat, astutum, ne incautus incurrat","severity":"info","text":"The balanced phrasing recalls similar antitheses in Cicero and later Christian moralists, emphasizing the ideal human as neither naive nor cunning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"istam speciosam mundi machinam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'beautiful machine of the world' anticipates later cosmological metaphors in medieval and Renaissance thought, though here it serves a theological argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'praeficiamus' could mean 'set over' or 'appoint as ruler'; the translation opts for 'set him over it', implying dominion.","The phrase 'in manu consilii sui ac proprii in libertate iudicii' is ambiguous: it may mean under God's governance or in human self-governance; the translation takes the latter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":124,"ref":"p124","source":"non conpetit, inquam, hoc legibus nostris, ut ei, quem glorificari etiam ex officio suo uolumus, materiam et causam gloriae denegemus, ut eum, quem cupimus munerari per nudam gratiam, faciamus de labore proprio nihil mereri. egerant potius in eo singillatim sociae istae germanaeque uirtutes, egerant partes suas. potentiae sit inter cuncta uisibilia, praesertim inter hostes habitaturum creare sublimem, sapientiae ordinare prudentem, bonitatis adiuuare certantem, iustitiae coronare uincentem.\n\nTalem ergo hominem pro utilitate sui ac pro nostri dignitate faciamus, quem in dexteram partem non trahat necessitas, sed uoluntas, qui malum ratione intellegat, bonum uirtute perSciat. talem faciamus, cui bonitas in natura, malitia uero extra naturam sit, qui bonum in uoluntate, malum habeat in potestate, qui bonum naturaliter uelit, malum actualiter possit, qui mandata nostra custodiat uoluntarius et periclitari non possit inuitus, cui prima ista sit laudis occasio, ut peccare et possit et nolit. sufficiat autem, quod in quadrupedibus et brutis, quae subicienda sunt homini, iam fecimus tale animal, quod, dum non est obnoxium culpae, fructum non potest habere iustitiae. hunc autem non oportet esse pecudis similem, cui commissuri sumus nostrae imaginis dignitatem. interrogemus ea, quae peccati nescia ac rationis ignara absque ullo prudentiae honore formauimus.","english":"It does not befit our laws,\" I say, \"that we should deny the material and cause of glory to one whom we wish to be glorified even by his own office, that we should make him, whom we desire to reward through naked grace, merit nothing from his own labor. Rather, let those allied and kindred virtues each perform their parts in him. Let it be the role of Power to create him sublime, destined to dwell among all visible things, especially among enemies; of Wisdom to order him prudent; of Goodness to aid him as he strives; of Justice to crown him as he conquers.\n\nLet us therefore make man such, for his own benefit and for the dignity of our own image, that he is drawn to the right side not by necessity but by will, who understands evil through reason and thoroughly knows good through virtue. Let us make him such that goodness is in his nature, but malice is outside his nature; that he has good in his will, evil in his power; that he naturally wills the good, and can actually do evil; that he guards our commands voluntarily and cannot be imperiled unwillingly; for whom this is the first occasion of praise: that he can sin and yet does not wish to. Let it suffice that among the quadrupeds and brutes, which are to be subject to man, we have already made such an animal, which, while not liable to fault, cannot have the fruit of justice. But this one ought not to be like a beast, to whom we are about to entrust the dignity of our image. Let us question those things which we have formed ignorant of sin and devoid of reason, without any honor of prudence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non conpetit ... legibus nostris","severity":"info","text":"The speaker (Goodness) asserts that denying glory to man contradicts divine laws, framing the creation of man as a cooperative act of virtues.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"per nudam gratiam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'through naked grace' emphasizes grace without human merit, a key point in Faustus's semi-Pelagian argument against pure divine monergism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Potentiae ... sapientiae ... bonitatis ... iustitiae","severity":"info","text":"The four virtues (Power, Wisdom, Goodness, Justice) are personified and assigned distinct roles in man's creation, forming a rhetorical tetrad that structures the passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"in quadrupedibus et brutis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus contrasts man with beasts that lack moral responsibility, reflecting a common patristic theme (e.g., Augustine) that animals are not subject to sin or justice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"qui bonum naturaliter uelit, malum actualiter possit","severity":"info","text":"This distinction between natural will for good and actual power for evil echoes earlier semi-Pelagian formulations, notably in John Cassian's Collationes.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Cassian 5th c."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"perSciat","severity":"caution","text":"The verb 'perSciat' (thoroughly knows) is a rare or possibly corrupted form; the standard would be 'persciat' or 'per sciat', but the sense is clear from context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The speaker 'Goodness' is identified from the previous passage, but the Latin text does not explicitly name the speaker here.","The verb 'perSciat' may be a scribal error or a deliberate archaism; the reading 'thoroughly knows' is adopted."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":125,"ref":"p125","source":"numquid proderit pecudi simplicitas sua aut arbori fecunditas sua? erga hominum nostrum non poterimus laudi conferre palmam, si uolumus necessitati seruire naturam.\n\nHunc ergo conditione subditum, discretione liberum, ratione perfectum ita ordinare nos aequum est sub potestate permissa et lege proposita, ut custodia praecepti aditus et causa sit praemii. nam si mali copiam ac licentiam non habuerit, boni gloriam non habebit. si iuxta beniuolentiam nostram non etiam suo studio uel labore praedicabilem tenuerit sanitatem, non erit innocentia, sed inertia, et praeterea praemium perit, ubi meritum non praecedit. bona nostra non potest seruare, qui nescit adquirere. nisi fuerit oboedientiae praemissa deuotio, gratiae uilescit oblatio. simulque uerecundia remunerantis est, si honoretur otiosus, si remuneretur ignauus. quin potius cooperante adiutorio etiam suo opere fiat dignus et cum bona conscientia sit beatus. nam nisi fuerit tribuentis iusta liberalitas, non erit accipientis perfecta felicitas, et nisi prius explorata fuerit inquirentis auiditas, in quo iocundabitur benignitas largientis?","english":"Will the simplicity of a beast profit it, or the fecundity of a tree profit it? Concerning our human being, shall we not be able to bestow the palm of praise, if we wish nature to serve necessity?\n\nIt is fitting, therefore, for us to order this being—subject by condition, free by discretion, perfected by reason—under a power that is permitted and a law that is proposed, so that the observance of the precept is the access and the cause of the reward. For if he has not had the abundance and license of evil, he will not have the glory of good. If, according to our benevolence, he does not also hold health praiseworthy by his own zeal or labor, it will not be innocence, but inertia; and moreover, the reward perishes where merit does not precede. He cannot preserve our goods who does not know how to acquire them. Unless devotion to obedience has been sent ahead, the offering of grace becomes cheap. And at the same time, it is a shame for the one who rewards if the idle man is honored, if the slothful man is remunerated. Rather, with cooperating assistance and also his own work, let him become worthy and, with a good conscience, be blessed. For unless the liberality of the giver is just, there will not be perfect happiness for the receiver; and unless the eagerness of the seeker has first been explored, in what will the kindness of the giver rejoice?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustus argues that human freedom is necessary for moral worth: without the possibility of evil, there is no glory in good. This counters the idea that grace alone suffices for merit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"gratiae uilescit oblatio","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'gratiae uilescit oblatio' (the offering of grace becomes cheap) is a key expression of Faustus's semi-Pelagian view: grace loses value if not preceded by human obedience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects the semi-Pelagian controversy of the 5th century, where Faustus of Riez argued against Augustine's strong predestinarianism, insisting on human initiative alongside grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a rhetorical question (beast/tree analogy) to a conditional argument: without the possibility of evil, there is no glory; without merit, reward perishes. This builds to a conclusion on cooperative grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument that merit must precede reward echoes Pelagius's own emphasis on human effort, but Faustus here attempts a middle ground, insisting on both grace and human cooperation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'pecudi' (beast) and 'arbori' (tree) are analogies for beings without free will; the exact referent of 'hominum nostrum' (our human being) is generic, not a specific individual."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":126,"ref":"p126","source":"Adhuc cum iustitia uerba conserit praescientia et ita dicit: melius est, ut non fiat genus humanum, quam ita fieri uideatur, ut pereat. respondet bonitas atque iustitia: non ita est. propter Cain impium Abel pius in rebus non erit? propter increscentem malitiam mundus Noe iustitiam non uidebit? propter ludam non habebimus Petrum? propter eos, qui uitio blandiente uincendi sunt, in uitam non uenient, qui per rigidam magnanimitatem uirtutis austerae iusto iudicio coronandi sunt? propter praeuaricatorum multitudinem praetermittentur in nihilum iustorum saecula, milia martyrum regnumque sanctorum? propter eos, quos suo crimine praenoscimus peccaturos, non faciemus eos, quos praescimus etiam suo merito placituros? si ita est, plus fraudabit potentiae nostrae praecognita quam consummata malitia nocebit, siquidem bonis malorum praescita generatio nocebit, bonis, qui propter eam creandi non erunt, quae creata quandoque soli sibi nocere potuisset? sed dicat bonitas: ita faciamus humanum genus, ut peccare non possit. cui respondet e contra circumspecta iustitia: quomodo terrestribus dabimus, quod caelestibus non indulsimus? quomodo habebit fragilitas hominum, quod natura non obtinuit angelorum? quae cum ita sint, non audeat creatura de creatoris opere disputare.","english":"Again, foreknowledge joins words with justice and speaks thus: It is better that the human race not come into being, than that it should appear to be made in such a way that it perishes. Goodness and justice reply: It is not so. Because of the impious Cain, will the pious Abel not exist in the world? Because of increasing wickedness, will the world not see the justice of Noah? Because of Judas, will we not have Peter? Because of those who are to be overcome by vice that flatters, will those who are to be crowned by a just judgment through the stern magnanimity of austere virtue not come into life? Because of the multitude of transgressors, will the ages of the righteous, the thousands of martyrs, and the kingdom of the saints be consigned to nothing? Because of those whom we foreknow will sin by their own crime, will we not make those whom we foreknow will also please by their own merit? If it is so, foreknown evil will defraud our power more than consummated evil will harm it, since the foreknown generation of the wicked will harm the good—the good who, because of it, will not be created, whereas, once created, it could at some time have harmed only itself. But let goodness say: Let us make the human race such that it cannot sin. To this, circumspect justice replies in turn: How shall we give to earthly beings what we have not granted to heavenly ones? How shall the fragility of men have what the nature of angels did not obtain? Since these things are so, let not the creature dare to dispute concerning the work of the creator.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Adhuc cum iustitia uerba conserit praescientia","severity":"info","text":"This passage dramatizes a debate between personified foreknowledge and justice, a rhetorical device common in late antique theological dialogues.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Cain ... Abel ... Noe ... ludam ... Petrum","severity":"info","text":"The examples of Cain and Abel, Noah, and Judas and Peter are drawn from Genesis and the Gospels, illustrating the coexistence of good and evil in salvation history.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"propter eos, quos suo crimine praenoscimus peccaturos","severity":"info","text":"Faustus engages the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom, a central issue in the semi-Pelagian controversy, arguing that foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"circumspecta iustitia","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'circumspecta iustitia' personifies justice as cautious and deliberative, contrasting with the more absolute claims of foreknowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"quomodo terrestribus dabimus, quod caelestibus non indulsimus?","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question echoes a common patristic argument that human limitations reflect a cosmic order, paralleling Augustine's discussions on the fallibility of angels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"non audeat creatura de creatoris opere disputare","severity":"caution","text":"The concluding admonition may reflect Faustus's rhetorical strategy to close debate, but its force is ambiguous: it could be a genuine theological limit or a dramatic device.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The personification of foreknowledge and justice as debating entities is a literary device; the extent to which Faustus endorses the views expressed by each is not explicitly resolved."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":127,"ref":"p127","source":"potentiae itaque fuit, ut inmortalem ex nihilo hominem conderet, sapientiae, ut capacem rationis efficeret, bonitatis, ut ad beatitudinem praepararet, iustitiae, ut non ante eligeret quam probaret.\n\nSed inter haec aliquis persistit et dicit: si constat peccatores in illo saeculo suppliciis addicendos et aeternis ignibus mancipandos, sic fieri homo debuit, ut is omnino peccare non possit. quid praecurris, o homo, auctoris tui dispensationes? quid quaeris rem inmortalitatis in regione mortis? quid quaeris in militia, quod paratur in gloria? quid ante emeritum laborem poscis, quae praeparata sunt post laborem? dabitur hoc, sed iam in aeternum iustificato, quando id, quod conlatum fuerit, perire non possit. dabitur hoc, sed in tempore beatitudinis, ubi iam peccatum nec uincere sit necesse nec scire, ubi ad peccandum non uoluntas, non possibilitas erit, ubi sancte, integre, pie uiuere non erit diligentia, non industria, sed natura dispensante ita diuina misericordia atque iustitia, ut qui hic studuerit integritati nulla illic ultra possit labe corrumpi. dignum enim esse iudicabit, ut homo peccare qui noluit infirmus non possit aeternus, sed ut labentibus in inmensum saeculis sine metu gaudium, sine inuido praemium, sine hoste sit regnum.","english":"It was, therefore, a matter of power that He should create man immortal from nothing, of wisdom that He should make him capable of reason, of goodness that He should prepare him for blessedness, of justice that He should not choose him before testing him.\n\nBut amidst these things someone persists and says: if it is established that sinners in that world are to be consigned to punishments and handed over to eternal fires, man ought to have been made in such a way that he cannot sin at all. Why do you anticipate, O man, the dispensations of your author? Why do you seek the condition of immortality in the region of death? Why do you seek in the militia what is prepared in glory? Why do you demand before earned labor what is prepared after labor? This will be given, but to one already justified for eternity, when that which has been conferred cannot perish. This will be given, but in the time of blessedness, where it is no longer necessary either to overcome sin or to know it, where there will be no will to sin, no possibility, where to live holily, chastely, piously will not be diligence, not industry, but nature dispensing divine mercy and justice in such a way that he who has striven for integrity here can no longer be corrupted by any stain there. For it will be judged fitting that man who, being weak, did not wish to sin, cannot sin when eternal, but that in ages rolling on without end there be joy without fear, reward without envy, a kingdom without an enemy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed inter haec aliquis persistit et dicit","severity":"info","text":"This passage introduces an objection from an imaginary interlocutor, a common rhetorical device in Faustus's argumentation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"inmortalem ex nihilo hominem conderet","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'create man immortal from nothing' echoes the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, a key point in debates on human nature and original sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"iustitiae, ut non ante eligeret quam probaret","severity":"info","text":"The idea that God's justice requires testing before election reflects Faustus's semi-Pelagian view that human effort precedes grace, contested by Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"quid quaeris rem inmortalitatis in regione mortis","severity":"info","text":"The rhetorical questions here parallel similar exhortations in Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos, urging patience for eschatological reward.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"dabitur hoc, sed iam in aeternum iustificato","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in later medieval discussions on the state of original righteousness and the possibility of sinlessness in paradise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ut qui hic studuerit integritati nulla illic ultra possit labe corrumpi","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'labe corrumpi' could be read as 'stain of corruption' or 'moral stain'; the translation opts for the latter, but the ambiguity may reflect Faustus's view of postlapsarian human nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'inmortalem ex nihilo hominem conderet' could be interpreted as referring to Adam's original state before the Fall, but Faustus may also be speaking hypothetically about what God could have done.","The term 'iustificato' in 'iam in aeternum iustificato' is ambiguous: it could mean 'justified' in a forensic sense or 'made righteous' in a transformative sense; the translation takes it as the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":128,"ref":"p128","source":"FRAGMENTA AD LACUNAS LIBRORUM DE GRATIA PERTINENTIA.\n\nEx prioris libri de gratia capite XIIII sub finem lacunoso uerba desumpta sunt, quae Ioannes Maxentius in libello, cui inscribitur 'ad epistulam Hormisdae responsio' (Migne, Patrologia Graeca LXXXVI 1, p. 109), affert (cf. quae exposuimus in libro 'Studien Uber die Schriften des Bischofes von Reii Faustus' p. sq.) :\n\nRursus in capite eiusdem libri XV agens (scil. Faustus) contra eos, qui non generale, sed speciale asserunt donum esse credulitatis, ita inter cetera loquitur: sed dicis, inquit, quia non omnibus detur, sed donum sit personale credulitas et illis tantum credere suppetat, quibus deus specialiter donauit, ut crederent. non ita est. nam dum eam dominus etiam ab incredulis exigit, omnibus eam insertam esse demonstrat. cui autem etiam ipsa naturae lege non suppetat credere, quando et daemones credunt et contremiscunt?'","english":"Fragments Pertaining to the Lacunae in the Books On Grace.\n\nFrom the earlier book On Grace, chapter XIV, near the end of which there is a lacuna, words have been taken which John Maxentius cites in his little work entitled ‘Response to the Letter of Hormisdas’ (Migne, Patrologia Graeca LXXXVI 1, p. 109) (cf. what we have set forth in the book ‘Studies on the Writings of Faustus, Bishop of Reii’ p. sq.):\n\nAgain, in the heading of the same book, chapter XV, arguing (scil. Faustus) against those who assert that the gift of belief is not general but special, he speaks among other things as follows: But you say, he says, that it is not given to all, but that belief is a personal gift and that the ability to believe is available only to those to whom God has specially granted that they should believe. It is not so. For when the Lord demands it even from unbelievers, he shows that it is implanted in all. For to whom does it not avail to believe even by the law of nature itself, when even demons believe and tremble?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Fragmenta ad lacunas librorum de gratia pertinentia","severity":"info","text":"This heading indicates that the passage is a collection of fragments filling lacunae in Faustus's work, preserved by John Maxentius in his 'Response to the Letter of Hormisdas'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ioannes Maxentius","severity":"info","text":"John Maxentius was a 6th-century Scythian monk and theologian who opposed semi-Pelagianism; his citation of Faustus here is part of a polemical context against those denying general grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"credulitas","severity":"info","text":"Here 'credulitas' means 'the capacity to believe' or 'belief' as a faculty, not credulity; Faustus argues it is a general gift of nature, not a special personal grant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"daemones credunt et contremiscunt","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the demonic confession in the Gospels (e.g., Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34) and the idea that even demons believe and tremble, used to argue that belief is natural to all rational beings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Rursus in capite eiusdem libri XV agens","severity":"info","text":"This marks a new fragment from chapter 15 of the same book, where Faustus directly addresses opponents who claim belief is a special, not general, gift.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"lacunoso","severity":"caution","text":"The original text of Faustus's chapter 14 is lacunose; the fragment is preserved only through Maxentius's citation, so the context and completeness are uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact extent of the lacuna in chapter 14 is unknown; the fragment may be incomplete.","The phrase 'naturae lege' could be interpreted as either natural law or the law of nature as a divine order; the translation takes it as 'law of nature'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":129,"ref":"p129","source":"II.\n\nEodem loco Maxentius (Migne l. c. p. 111) posterioris libri Fausti de gratia caput XI hodie maxima ex parte deperditum respicere uidetur dicens (cf. quae exposuimus in libro supra laudato p. sq.):\n\n'Unde et in libr(i secundi capitul)o undecimo per naturalem uigorem absque gratiae adiutorio multos non solum ante aduentum domini, uerum etiam et ante legem litterae saluatos atque ad plenam cordis puritatem perfectamque iustitiam peruenisse, filios dei fieri meruisse impudenter et procaciter asseuerat (scil. Faustus).'","english":"II.\n\nIn the same place, Maxentius (Migne, loc. cit., p. 111) appears to refer to chapter XI of the later book of Faustus On Grace, which today is for the most part lost, saying (cf. what we have set forth in the book cited above, p. sq.):\n\n'Whence also in the eleventh chapter (of the second book) he (scil. Faustus) shamelessly and impudently asserts that many, by natural vigor without the aid of grace, not only before the coming of the Lord, but also even before the law of the letter, were saved and attained to full purity of heart and perfect righteousness, and merited to become sons of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Maxentius","severity":"info","text":"John Maxentius, a 6th-century Scythian monk, cites Faustus to condemn his perceived semi-Pelagianism. This passage preserves a lost chapter of De Gratia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"caput XI hodie maxima ex parte deperditum","severity":"caution","text":"Chapter 11 of Faustus’s second book is now largely lost; this citation is a key witness to its content.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"naturalem uigorem","severity":"info","text":"‘Natural vigor’ denotes innate human capacity, which Maxentius claims Faustus elevates above grace—a central point in the semi-Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ante legem litterae","severity":"info","text":"‘Before the law of the letter’ refers to the period before the Mosaic law, implying salvation by natural means alone—a claim Maxentius deems heretical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"posterioris libri Fausti de gratia caput XI","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is attributed to chapter 11 of Faustus’s second book On Grace, indicating the work’s original two-book structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"impudenter et procaciter","severity":"caution","text":"Maxentius’s hostile language (‘shamelessly and impudently’) colors the citation; Faustus’s original wording may be less extreme.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of Faustus’s lost chapter is unknown; Maxentius’s paraphrase may distort the original argument."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}