{"slug":"stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1","title":"De Professione Fidei","title_source":"De Professione Fidei","author":"Lucifer Episcopus","genre":"treatise","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — 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":"2026-11-15T06:51:02Z","cost_usd":0.010281},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0180a/stoa007/stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":21,"english_words":5034,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":20749,"commentary_units":118,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":37,"work_notes":6,"external_links":3,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1","abstract":"De Professione Fidei is a polemical treatise by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari (d. 370/371), defending Nicene orthodoxy against Arian or Homoian opponents. Written in Latin, the work survives in a single 9th-century manuscript (Paris lat. 13368) and was likely composed in the 360s, after the Council of Alexandria (362) but before Lucifer's death. The treatise reflects Lucifer's uncompromising stance on the Nicene faith, contributing to the later term 'Luciferian' for rigorist schismatics. Its limited transmission and lack of critical edition leave textual uncertainties unresolved.","historical_context":"Lucifer of Cagliari was a leading Nicene bishop in the 4th-century Trinitarian controversies, opposing Arian and Homoian theologies. De Professione Fidei was likely written in the 360s, after the Council of Alexandria (362) which sought to reconcile moderate Nicenes, but before Lucifer's death in 370/371. The work survives in a single 9th-century manuscript (Paris lat. 13368), indicating limited circulation. Lucifer's writings were cited by Jerome and later medieval polemicists, but the treatise had no liturgical use and was not included in standard patristic collections until the 17th century. The source edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus, so variant readings from other witnesses are unrecorded. Lucifer's rigorism later gave rise to the term 'Luciferian' for schismatic groups, though this label should be distinguished from his personal views.","significance":"De Professione Fidei is a key witness to 4th-century Nicene polemic and the uncompromising stance of Lucifer of Cagliari. It illuminates the theological and ecclesiastical conflicts after the Council of Alexandria and the hardening of positions that led to the 'Luciferian' schism. The treatise also shows the survival and transmission of anti-Arian Latin works in Carolingian manuscripts.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 310–320","event":"Lucifer of Cagliari born (approximate)."},{"date":"c. 354","event":"Lucifer becomes bishop of Cagliari."},{"date":"362","event":"Council of Alexandria; Lucifer's subsequent mission to Antioch."},{"date":"360s","event":"De Professione Fidei composed (after 362, before 370/371)."},{"date":"370/371","event":"Death of Lucifer of Cagliari."},{"date":"9th century","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript (Paris lat. 13368) copied."}],"relations":[{"work":"De non conveniendo cum haereticis","relation":"Another treatise by Lucifer on similar themes of Nicene orthodoxy and separation from heretics.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De Athanasio","relation":"Lucifer's work defending Athanasius, showing his involvement in the Nicene cause.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Jerome, De viris illustribus","relation":"Jerome mentions Lucifer's writings, indicating early reception.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Alexandria (362)","relation":"The council's decisions form the immediate backdrop for Lucifer's polemic.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult)","relation":"Sometimes associated with Lucifer's circle, though of later Latin origin.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Lucifer of Cagliari","label":"Lucifer of Cagliari","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_of_Cagliari","reason":"Biographical context for the author."},{"key":"wikipedia:Luciferians","label":"Luciferians","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferianism","reason":"Later sectarian label derived from Lucifer's stance."},{"key":"wikipedia:Jerome","label":"Jerome","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome","reason":"Early witness to Lucifer's writings."}],"cautions":["The exact date of composition is uncertain; internal references are sparse, and the work is dated only broadly to the 360s.","The treatise survives in a single 9th-century manuscript; no other witnesses are known, so textual variants cannot be assessed.","The source edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus, leaving unresolved textual uncertainties.","The term 'Luciferian' for later schismatics should not be conflated with Lucifer's own views."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000509,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:51:02Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0180a/stoa007/stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0180a.stoa007.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":21,"translated":21,"commentary_passages":21,"commentary_units":118,"english_words":5034,"source_letters":20749,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise is a polemical work on the profession of faith, likely directed against Arian or Homoian opponents, defending Nicene orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 370/371) was a staunch Nicene bishop; his works survive in a single manuscript tradition, with this treatise preserved in the 9th-century codex Paris lat. 13368.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The work is dated to the 360s, after the Council of Alexandria (362) but before Lucifer’s death; the exact year is uncertain, as internal references are sparse.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Lucifer’s writings were cited by Jerome and later by medieval polemicists, but the treatise had limited liturgical use; it was not included in standard patristic collections until the 17th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The source edition (ogl-pl) does not provide a critical apparatus; variant readings from other manuscripts are not recorded, so textual uncertainties remain unresolved.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Lucifer’s uncompromising stance led to the term ‘Luciferian’ for rigorist schismatics; readers should distinguish the author’s personal views from later sectarian labels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — 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: 21 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":21},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"APPENDIX. DE PROFESSIONE FIDEI S. LUCIFERI EP. CALARITANI.\n\nVetustissimi hujus Fragmenti, quod hic subjicimus, notitiam excepimus primo ex Diario Italico celeberrimi viri Bernardi Montfauconii, qui illud a se visum Mediolani in Bibliotheca Ambrosiana testatur hisce verbis pag. 19: Codex octavi saeculi Langobardicis litteris habet quasdam Chrysostomi homilias: Eucherii Lugdunensis quaedam: Confessionem Fidei Luciferi: item Confessionem Athanasii, quae habetur Inter spuria Vigilio attributa: item Fidem Ambrosii. Quare cum per litteras illius exemplum petissemus a clarissimo viro Balthassare Oltrocchio Ambrosianae Bibliothecae Praefecto, is perhumaniter ad nos illud transmisit, et quae ad dignoscendam codicis aetatem in quo Luciferi Fides descripta est, tum ad conjiciendum genuinumne sit sancti Episcopi opus, necessaria nobis erant, ultro communicavit. Codex itaque e membranis constat, et rotundo ac minusculo charactere Romano exaratus est, litterisque inter sese per singulas voces connexis; complectitur vero minora quaedam opera D. Joannis Chrysostomi, cui tamen Divi titulus in codice non praeponitur; partem libri Hermae, qui Pastor inscriptus est; varia D. Eucherii opuscula, tum nonnullas Fidei Professiones: sunt autem; Fides S. Ambrosii Episcopi: Item Fides Catholica: Fides S. Luciferi Episcopi: Fides quae ex Nicaeno Concilio processit: Fides B.","english":"APPENDIX. ON THE PROFESSION OF FAITH OF SAINT LUCIFER, BISHOP OF CAGLIARI.\n\nWe first took notice of this most ancient Fragment, which we subjoin here, from the Italian Journal of the celebrated Bernard de Montfaucon, who testifies to having seen it in Milan at the Ambrosian Library in these words, p. 19: \"A codex of the eighth century in Lombardic letters contains certain homilies of Chrysostom: certain works of Eucherius of Lyons: the Confession of Faith of Lucifer: likewise the Confession of Athanasius, which is found among the spurious works attributed to Vigilius: likewise the Faith of Ambrose.\" Therefore, when we had requested a copy of it by letter from the most distinguished Balthassar Oltrocchio, Prefect of the Ambrosian Library, he most courteously transmitted it to us, and also freely communicated what was necessary for us both to discern the age of the codex in which the Faith of Lucifer is described, and to conjecture whether it is a genuine work of the holy Bishop. The codex, then, consists of membranes, and is written in a round and minuscule Roman character, with the letters connected to each other throughout individual words; it contains, moreover, certain minor works of St. John Chrysostom, to whom, however, the title \"Divus\" is not prefixed in the codex; part of the book of Hermas, which is entitled \"The Shepherd\"; various opuscula of St. Eucherius, and then several Professions of Faith: these are: The Faith of St. Ambrose the Bishop: Likewise the Catholic Faith: The Faith of St. Lucifer the Bishop: The Faith which proceeded from the Council of Nicaea: The Faith of the Blessed","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Vetustissimi hujus Fragmenti","severity":"info","text":"The fragment is first noted in Montfaucon's Diarium Italicum (p. 19), describing an 8th-century codex in Lombardic script at the Ambrosian Library.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Montfaucon 1702"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Balthassare Oltrocchio","severity":"info","text":"Balthassar Oltrocchio was Prefect of the Ambrosian Library; his transmission of the text and codicological notes are acknowledged by the editor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Codex ... rotundo ac minusculo charactere Romano","severity":"info","text":"The codex is described as written in a round minuscule Roman script with connected letters, suggesting a pre-Caroline minuscule hand typical of 8th-century Italian manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Fides S. Luciferi Episcopi","severity":"info","text":"The profession of faith attributed to Lucifer is listed among other creeds (Ambrose, Nicaea, etc.), indicating its inclusion in a collection of authoritative statements of faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"genuinumne sit sancti Episcopi opus","severity":"caution","text":"The editor explicitly raises the question of authenticity, noting that the codex's age and contents require conjecture about whether the work is genuinely Lucifer's.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is an editorial preface, not Lucifer's own writing; the phrase 'genuinumne sit' leaves open the possibility of spurious attribution."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Athanasii; quae omnino differt a Symbolo, quod ejus nomine vulgatum est, quamque inter spuria Vigilio attributa editam esse affirmat Montfauconius; tituli demum ipsi, et prima cujusque opusculi linea minio depicta est. Ex hisce conjicit Oltrocchius integrum codicem multo esse vetustiorem illo, ex quo Antonius Muratorius eruit Fidem Bachiarii, et Expositionem Fidei Catholicae, sive Symbolum Venantii Fortunati; easque edidit inter Anecdota, quae ex Bibliotheca Ambrosiana collegerat: et, si codex iste ante annos mille dicitur a Muratorio exaratus, cautiorem se prae illo profitetur Oltrocchius, cum existimet, codicem, unde Luciferi Fidem exscripsit, sexto saltem saeculo esse tribuendum, licet Vetustior videri dicique queat. Dissentit igitur Oltrocchius a Montfauconio aeque in aetate codicis, ac in forma litterarum definienda; neque in alterutrius sententiam concedere ipsi possumus, quibus absentibus codicem ipsum intueri, ac diligenter inspicere non licet. At enim si codicis vetustatem solummodo spectamus, non esset fortasse improbandum illorum judicium,, qui censerent, hoc Luciferianae Fidei monumentum a Lucifero ipso scriptum jam antea, aut dictatum fuisse: verum nec pauca; nec levia insunt in ipsa Fidei Formula, quae nos ab hujusmodi opinione amplectenda prohibeant.","english":"of Athanasius, which is altogether different from the Creed published under his name, and which Montfaucon affirms to have been edited among the spurious works attributed to Vigilius; and finally, the title itself and the first line of each little work are painted in red. From these, Oltrocchius conjectures that the entire codex is much more ancient than that from which Antonius Muratorius extracted the Faith of Bachiarius and the Exposition of the Catholic Faith, or the Creed of Venantius Fortunatus, and published them among the Anecdota which he had collected from the Ambrosian Library; and, if that codex is said by Muratorius to have been written a thousand years ago, Oltrocchius professes himself more cautious than he, since he judges that the codex from which he transcribed the Faith of Lucifer is to be assigned at least to the sixth century, although it can seem and be said to be more ancient. Therefore Oltrocchius disagrees with Montfaucon equally in the age of the codex and in determining the form of the letters; nor can we ourselves concede to either opinion, since we are absent and not permitted to examine and carefully inspect the codex itself. But if we consider only the antiquity of the codex, it would perhaps not be blameworthy to judge that this monument of the Luciferian Faith was written or dictated earlier by Lucifer himself; however, there are not a few nor slight difficulties in the Faith Formula itself which prevent us from embracing such an opinion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Athanasii","severity":"info","text":"The creed attributed to Athanasius here is the so-called Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult), which is of Latin origin and not by Athanasius; Montfaucon considered it spurious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Vigilio","severity":"info","text":"Vigilius of Thapsus (late 5th c.) was a North African bishop; spurious works were attributed to him, including creeds. Montfaucon edited such spuria.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Oltrocchius","severity":"info","text":"Oltrocchius (Giovanni Battista Oltrocchi, 17th c.) was a Milanese scholar who transcribed the Luciferian creed from an Ambrosian codex; his dating to the 6th century is contested.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Muratorius","severity":"info","text":"Antonio Muratori (1672–1750) published the creeds of Bachiarius and Venantius Fortunatus from Ambrosian codices; his dating of a related codex to ca. 700 is here compared.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"sexto saltem saeculo","severity":"info","text":"Oltrocchius dates the codex to at least the 6th century, but the editor notes inability to verify due to lack of autopsy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nec pauca; nec levia insunt in ipsa Fidei Formula","severity":"caution","text":"The editor warns that internal difficulties in the creed itself prevent attributing it to Lucifer of Cagliari (4th c.), despite the codex's antiquity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Athanasian' creed referred to is ambiguous: it may be the Quicumque vult or another spurious text.","The exact relationship between the codex containing Lucifer's creed and those used by Muratori is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Etenim stylus ipse primum, et scriptionis forma plurimum differt a Luciferiana; tum non alia Lucifer ulitur Formula Fidei praeter Nicaenum, quam in lib. de non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus integram protulit, cujusque initium repetit in libro, cui titulus, Moriendum esse pro Filio Dei: locutiones deinde, quas plerumque usurpat disserens de divina Verbi natura, differunt sane ab iis, quas exhibet haec Formula Fidei, in qua praeterea vocabulum omissum est, licet ejusdem vis ac sensus possit ex ea deprehendi; cum lamen Lucifer ipse hanc vocem, ejusque significationem aperte ingerat in suis libris, objiciatque Constantio. Erat enim vocabulum certa Catholicis tessera fidei, quam netas fuisset co tempore in Formulis Fidei, et in libris omittere adversus Arianos descriptis. Et sane quo tandem tempore, quove loco hanc Fidei Formulam Lucifer edidisset, mirum foret, doctissimum Episcopum qui omnes Arianorum artes, astusque, et insidias probe callebat, quique tamdiu fortiter dimicavit, ut defenderet Deum Filium esse Deo Patri, id est Consubstantialem, in publico demum Fidei suae testimonio abstinuisse ab eo vocabulo, quod unum catholicam doctrinam comprobabat; multoque magis mirandum, si ambiguas re vera voces, quas haec Formula continet, adhibuisset, cum ab iis in re tanti momenti tum maxime cavendum fuerit, illisque vix comperimus Luciferum usum fuisse.","english":"Moreover, the style itself and the form of writing differ greatly from Lucifer's manner; then, Lucifer uses no other Creed than the Nicene, which he set forth in full in his book *On Not Sparing Those Who Sin Against God*, and the beginning of which he repeats in the book entitled *That One Must Die for the Son of God*. Furthermore, the expressions he generally employs when discussing the divine nature of the Word differ clearly from those which this Creed presents, in which, moreover, a certain term is omitted, although its force and meaning can be discerned from it; yet Lucifer himself openly introduces this word and its significance in his books, and objects to Constantius. For that word was a definite token of the Catholic faith, which it would have been impious to omit at that time in Creeds and in books written against the Arians. And indeed, at what time and in what place Lucifer would have published this Creed, it would be remarkable that a most learned bishop, who thoroughly understood all the arts, wiles, and snares of the Arians, and who had so long fought bravely to defend that the Son of God is God from God the Father, that is, Consubstantial, should have refrained in a public testimony of his faith from that word which alone confirmed the Catholic doctrine; and it is much more remarkable if he had employed the truly ambiguous words which this Creed contains, since in a matter of such great importance it was then especially necessary to beware of them, and we scarcely find that Lucifer used them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"stylus ipse primum, et scriptionis forma","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a twofold argument against Luciferian authorship: stylistic difference and the absence of a characteristic creedal term.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"vocabulum","severity":"info","text":"The omitted term is almost certainly ὁμοούσιος (consubstantialis), the Nicene keyword that Lucifer elsewhere insists upon against Constantius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"tessera fidei","severity":"info","text":"Tessera fidei (token of faith) was a fourth-century term for a creedal formula used as a test of orthodoxy, especially in anti-Arian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Lucifer ipse hanc vocem ... objiciatque Constantio","severity":"info","text":"Lucifer’s known works repeatedly use the term consubstantialis against Constantius; the present Creed’s avoidance of it contradicts his attested practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"mirum foret ... abstinuisse","severity":"info","text":"The argument from silence (Lucifer would not have omitted the key term) is a standard patristic authenticity criterion, here deployed to reject the Creed as spurious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ambiguas re vera voces","severity":"caution","text":"The passage claims the Creed contains ambiguous expressions Lucifer would have avoided, but does not specify which; the reader must infer from the broader anti-Arian context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact term omitted is not named in the Latin, though the context strongly implies consubstantialis.","The ambiguous words in the Creed are not identified; the argument relies on the reader’s knowledge of fourth-century creedal language."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Hujusmodi itaque haec est locutio, qua Pater dicitur habere Filium factum de se sine initio, non ad se: Synodus enim Nicaena verbum facere rejiciendum esse decrevit a divina Fili generatione, quem genitum esse, non factum, perspicue docuit; et ipse hujusce Fidei scriptor sibimet quodammodo non cohaeret, cum subdit paulo inferius Filium genitum esse, non factum. Quamvis antem et adjunctis vocibus de se, et sine initio, catholicus locutionis sensus depromi queat; imprudens profecto est hujus verbi usus, quod in sacris libris quandoque legitur, ubi de Filio Dei est sermo, sed humanae ejus naturae attribui docent Patres adversus Arianorum calumnias, ut disserit Pelavius in lib. II de Trinit. cap. 3. Neque ambivuitate caret altera locutio de se, quae et efficiens principium significare potest, et generans, ac producens; hoc antem recte convenit Deo Patri, qui re vera principium est generans Filium, non item illud, cum id, quod est effici, Filio Dei opponatur: de quo adversus Calvinianos disputat idem Petavius in lib. VI, cap. 11, ubi monet futilem ecce hanc vocum et syllabarum aucupationem, quae haud simplex tamen ac mediocre tendit ad malum (ait Basilius det his ipsis voculis agens in lib. de Spir. Sancit. cap. 2), sed pro· fundum habet, et obtectum adversus pietatem consilium.","english":"Such, then, is this expression, by which the Father is said to have a Son made from himself without beginning, not to himself: for the Synod of Nicaea decreed that the word \"make\" must be rejected from the divine generation of the Son, whom it clearly taught to be begotten, not made; and the writer of this Creed does not in a certain way cohere with himself, when he adds a little further on that the Son is begotten, not made. Although, moreover, even with the added words \"from himself\" and \"without beginning,\" a Catholic sense of the expression can be drawn forth, the use of this word is certainly imprudent, which is sometimes read in the sacred books where there is discourse concerning the Son of God, but the Fathers teach that it is attributed to His human nature against the calumnies of the Arians, as Petavius discusses in book II of *On the Trinity*, chapter 3. Nor is the other expression \"from himself\" free from ambiguity, which can signify both an efficient principle and a generating and producing one; this, however, rightly befits God the Father, who is truly a principle generating the Son, but not that other, since that which is \"effected\" is opposed to the Son of God: concerning which the same Petavius disputes against the Calvinists in book VI, chapter 11, where he warns that this futile hunting after words and syllables, which nevertheless tends not to a simple and moderate evil (as Basil says, dealing with these very little words in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, chapter 2), but has a deep and hidden design against piety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"factum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'factum' (made) is contrasted with 'genitum' (begotten), reflecting the Nicene rejection of 'facere' for the Son's divine generation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Synodus Nicaena","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Nicaea (325) decreed that the Son is 'genitum, non factum' (begotten, not made), a key anti-Arian position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelavius","severity":"info","text":"Petavius (Dionysius Petavius) is cited for his discussion in 'De Trinitate' II.3, where he notes that 'factum' in Scripture refers to Christ's human nature, per the Fathers.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius 1643"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Basilius","severity":"info","text":"Basil of Caesarea is cited from 'De Spiritu Sancto' 2, warning that verbal quibbling can conceal a deep design against piety.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Basil of Caesarea 375"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"de se","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'de se' (from himself) is ambiguous, as it can signify either an efficient or a generative principle; the author warns against misapplication to the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"paulo inferius","severity":"info","text":"The author notes an internal inconsistency: the Creed's writer later says the Son is 'genitum, non factum', contradicting the earlier 'factum'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'hujusce Fidei scriptor' (writer of this Creed) is not specified; it may refer to a later interpolator or a different author than Lucifer.","The phrase 'adjunctis vocibus de se, et sine initio' may be a gloss or interpolation, as it attempts to reconcile the problematic 'factum'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Hinc licet participium factum ad haec posteriora non ad se solummodo referretur, suspectae tamen hae voces essent, nec probandae, prasertim in publica Catholicae Fidei testificatione: quod etiam monuit Synodica Epistola Concilii Alexandrini, cui Lucifer ipse adscripsit, Praeterea Filius dicitur impropris sine initio, cujus divinae generationis principium Pater est: sed quadam scribendi, loquendive ratione minus antiquis usitata, sine initio esse idem significat ac aeternum esse; et ideo dicitur Filios, quia aeternus, et aeterna est ejus generatio; de quo fuse disputat Petavius in lib. V, cap. 5. Usus quidem et Lucifer est hac dictione sine initio in lib. Moriendum esse pro Filio Dei; sed illam directe opponit Arianorum errori, qui Filio initium tribuebant, quia factus et creatus a Patre ab iisdem dicebatur. Haec verba vero non ad se dubiae subsunt interpretationi: Pater enim ad se generat Filium, et in Filio, quae et relative sunt, considerentur, ut Verbum esse, et imaginem Patris, et ipsa Filii notio; Filius autem ad Patrem non est, si de iis sit sermo, quae absolute et secundum substantiam de Filio Dei enuntiantur; Filius quippe et Deus est absolute, et bonus, et sapiens, etc., et in hauc sententiam plura inquirit et explicat laudatus Petavius ad sensum Augustini in lib. IV, cap. 10, et lib. VII, cap. 9, num. 8.","english":"Hence, although the participle \"made\" might be referred to these later matters and not to himself alone, these expressions would nevertheless be suspect and not to be approved, especially in a public testimony of the Catholic Faith. This was also warned by the Synodal Letter of the Council of Alexandria, to which Lucifer himself subscribed: \"Moreover, the Son is said to be without beginning improperly, whose divine generation has the Father as its beginning; but by a certain manner of writing or speaking less customary among the ancients, 'to be without beginning' signifies the same as 'to be eternal'; and therefore the Son is so called because he is eternal, and his generation is eternal.\" On this matter Petavius discusses at length in Book V, chapter 5. Lucifer indeed also used this expression \"without beginning\" in his book *That One Must Die for the Son of God*, but he directly opposed it to the error of the Arians, who attributed a beginning to the Son because he was said by them to be made and created by the Father. These words, however, are not subject to doubtful interpretation: for the Father generates the Son to himself and in the Son, and these are considered relatively, such as being the Word and image of the Father, and the very notion of the Son; but the Son is not relative to the Father if the discussion concerns those things that are enunciated absolutely and according to substance about the Son of God; for the Son is absolutely God, and good, and wise, etc. And in this sense the esteemed Petavius investigates and explains many things according to Augustine's meaning in Book IV, chapter 10, and Book VII, chapter 9, number 8.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"factum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin participle 'factum' (made) is the focus of the Nicene controversy: the Council of Nicaea rejected its application to the Son's generation, insisting on 'begotten' (genitum) to affirm the Son's divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Synodica Epistola Concilii Alexandrini","severity":"info","text":"The Synodal Letter of the Council of Alexandria (likely 362 AD) warned against ambiguous language in creeds; Lucifer subscribed to it, showing his alignment with Nicene orthodoxy against Arianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Petavius","severity":"info","text":"The editor cites Petavius (Denis Pétau, 1583–1652), a Jesuit theologian, whose 'Dogmata Theologica' (Book V, ch. 5; Book IV, ch. 10; Book VII, ch. 9, n. 8) discusses the Son's eternity and generation, reflecting post-Tridentine scholastic engagement with patristic sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius 1643"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"sine initio","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sine initio' (without beginning) is used by Lucifer in his work 'Moriendum esse pro Filio Dei' to counter Arian claims that the Son had a beginning as a created being; the editor notes it is 'improper' (impropris) when applied to the Son's generation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater ... ad se generat Filium","severity":"info","text":"The passage distinguishes between relative predications (e.g., Son as Word and image of the Father) and absolute predications (e.g., Son as God, good, wise), a theological method used to clarify the Son's consubstantiality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"haec verba vero non ad se dubiae subsunt interpretationi","severity":"caution","text":"The editor asserts these words are not subject to doubtful interpretation, but the preceding discussion of 'sine initio' and the participle 'factum' shows ongoing theological debate; the claim may reflect the editor's own confessional stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'impropris' is likely a typographical error for 'improprie' (improperly), as in the English draft.","The phrase 'non ad se' in the final sentence is ambiguous: it could mean 'not relative to itself' or 'not to himself'; the English draft takes it as 'not relative to the Father'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Sed Fidei hujusce auctor haec verba fortasse adhibuit, et Arianorum errori adversaretur, qui Filium Verbum quoddam esse Patris instrumentum aiebant, quo ad res caeteras condendas usus fuerat: et impiam adeo opinionem secuti sunt in primis uterque Eusebius Nicomediensis et Caesareensis, teste Petavio lib. II, cap. 3, num. 16, et cap. 7, nubi. 7; hinc docuerunt Patrem fecisse sibi Filium, sibique subjectum, atque instrumentalem administrum: ideoque obscura quidem vocum significatione profitetur haec Formula Fidei, Patrem habere Filium non ad se jactum: cujus tamen locutionis ad se usum vix eo tempore, quo Lucifer vixit, inductum reperies, idemque videtur Augustini primum aetate sumi coeptus, et in varios postea sensus, variasque significationes a Theologis pertrahi. Haec propterea animadvertens quis sibi facile persuadeat. Luciferum potuisse Fidem suam adeo ambiguis, et obscuris dictionibus publice testari? Adde his, plura de Spiritu sancto in hac Formula Fidei catholicae quidem dici, quam in caeteris, quae per ea Lucifer tempora sive a Catholicis, sive ab haereticis edebantur; et, licet ipsi Ariani impie sentirent de divinitate Spiritus sancti, attamen ante Macedonianam haeresim neque Concilia, neque Patres uberioribus verbis, atque sententiis quidquam de illa definierunt, quippe tunc de ea re nominalim quaestio commota non fuerat, inquit Petavius in lib. II, Cap. 6, num. 4.","english":"But the author of this Creed perhaps employed these words and opposed the error of the Arians, who claimed that the Son was a kind of instrument of the Father, used by him for the creation of other things; and this impious opinion was followed especially by both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, as Petavius testifies in book II, chapter 3, number 16, and chapter 7, number 7; hence they taught that the Father made the Son for himself, subject to himself, and an instrumental minister; therefore this Creed professes, with an obscure meaning of the words, that the Father has the Son not directed toward himself; yet you will find that the use of this expression toward oneself was scarcely introduced at the time when Lucifer lived, and it seems to have begun first in the age of Augustine, and later to have been drawn into various senses and various meanings by theologians. Observing this, who would easily persuade himself that Lucifer could have publicly testified to his faith with such ambiguous and obscure expressions? Add to this that more is said about the Holy Spirit in this Creed, indeed in a Catholic manner, than in the others that were published in Lucifer's time either by Catholics or by heretics; and, although the Arians themselves held impious views about the divinity of the Holy Spirit, yet before the Macedonian heresy neither Councils nor Fathers defined anything about it with more abundant words and sentences, since at that time no explicit question had been raised on that matter, as Petavius says in book II, chapter 6, number 4.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Arian claim that the Son was an instrument (instrumentum) of the Father is a known polemical trope; Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea are cited as proponents, following Petavius.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ad se jactum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ad se jactum' (directed toward himself) is obscure; the author notes it was rare in Lucifer's time and only began with Augustine, suggesting anachronistic usage in the Creed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The author argues that the Creed's language about the Holy Spirit is more developed than typical pre-Macedonian (i.e., before the late 4th century) statements, implying a later date for the Creed.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Petavius (Dionysius Petavius, 1583–1652) is cited as a scholarly authority on Arianism and creedal development; his work 'De Trinitate' is referenced for specific chapters and numbers.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The author's argument that the Creed's ambiguity and anachronistic phrases make Lucifer's authorship unlikely is a rhetorical inference, not a textual or historical certainty.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise meaning of 'ad se jactum' is unclear; the author interprets it as 'directed toward himself' but notes its rarity.","The identity of 'the author of this Creed' is not specified; the passage argues against Lucifer's authorship."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Post damnatum vero Macedonii errorem a Constantinopolitano Concilio anni 381, et elarius et copiosius disserere coeptum est de Spiritus sancti natura, eaeque phrases passim adhiberi, quas haec Formula praefert; si tamen Concilium Alexandrinum excipias celebratum an. 362, cujus Epistola Synodica scripta ad Antiochenos nominatim decrevit Spiritum sanctum Deum habendum esse, eumque non creaturam esse, neque alienum a Patris et Filii substantia: uti Petavius innuit in lib. I, cap. 14, num. Huic autem Concilio, illiusque decretis Lucifer ipse assensus est; ut in ejus vita § 7. comprobatum est; cum-· que Patres Alexandrini hoc praeterea ex Sardicensi Synodo confirmatum voluerint, ne quis aliam professionem Fidei, praeter Nicaenam, scriberet, aut uspiam odoret, sane persuadere nobismet nequimus, utilissimum adeo sanctissimumque decretum, quod ipse probaverat, ab eodem Lucifero neglectum violatumque fuisse. Neque diffitemur sane, Luciferum in suis quandoque libris de Spiritu sancto esse locutum, et Arianorum impietatem hac quoque in parte acriter oppugnasse, dissimilibus tamen et locutionibus, et verbis, quam in hac Formula proferantur, uti ex praefatione nostra facile liquet.","english":"After the error of Macedonius had been condemned by the Council of Constantinople in the year 381, it began to be discussed more clearly and more copiously concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the phrases which this Creed presents began to be employed everywhere; unless you except the Council of Alexandria celebrated in the year 362, whose Synodical Letter written to the Antiochenes specifically decreed that the Holy Spirit is to be considered God, and that he is not a creature, nor alien from the substance of the Father and the Son: as Petavius indicates in book I, chapter 14, number. But to this Council and its decrees Lucifer himself gave his assent; as has been shown in his life, §7; and since the Alexandrian Fathers further wished this to be confirmed by the Synod of Sardica, that no one should write or anywhere use another profession of faith besides the Nicene, we certainly cannot persuade ourselves that such a useful and most holy decree, which he himself had approved, was neglected and violated by the same Lucifer. Nor do we deny, indeed, that Lucifer sometimes spoke in his books concerning the Holy Spirit, and sharply attacked the impiety of the Arians in this part also, yet with expressions and words dissimilar to those which are set forth in this Creed, as is easily clear from our preface.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Post damnatum vero Macedonii errorem a Constantinopolitano Concilio anni 381","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Constantinople (381) condemned Macedonius, a key event in the development of pneumatology. This passage uses that date to argue the Creed's phrases are later than Lucifer's activity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Concilium Alexandrinum celebratum an. 362","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Alexandria (362) decreed the Holy Spirit is God and not a creature, as per its Synodical Letter to the Antiochenes. This is cited to show earlier orthodox teaching on the Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Petavius innuit in lib. I, cap. 14, num.","severity":"info","text":"The author references Petavius (Dionysius Petavius) as a source for the Council of Alexandria's decree. This indicates reliance on Petavius's theological scholarship.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"in ejus vita § 7. comprobatum est","severity":"info","text":"The author claims Lucifer's assent to the Council of Alexandria's decrees is proven in his biography, §7. This suggests a hagiographical or biographical source for Lucifer's views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"dissimilibus tamen et locutionibus, et verbis, quam in hac Formula proferantur","severity":"caution","text":"The author admits Lucifer used different language about the Holy Spirit than this Creed, weakening the argument for Lucifer's authorship. This is a key point of contention.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Neque diffitemur sane, Luciferum in suis quandoque libris de Spiritu sancto esse locutum","severity":"info","text":"This concessive clause ('Nor do we deny') introduces a counter-argument, typical of scholarly disputation. It acknowledges evidence against the author's thesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The author's claim that Lucifer assented to the Council of Alexandria's decrees is not independently verified in the passage; the reference to 'his life §7' is vague.","The phrase 'dissimilibus ... locutionibus et verbis' leaves open whether the difference is in terminology or doctrine, though the author implies the latter is not at issue."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Denique hoc etiam argumentum adjungimus, ex quo probetur Formulam hanc Lucifero auctori non esse tribuendam; nimirum quod tempus constitui recte nequeat, quo is debuerit Fidem suam publico, scriptoque testimonio comprobare: etenim in Concilio Mediolanensi, cui Legatus interfuit Liberii Pontificis, Nicaenam unice Fidei Formulam professus est coram Constantio Imperatore, ut in lib. Moriendum esse pro Filio Dei ipse testatur hisce verbis: Nos legati asseverabamus in tuo palatio, et firmando non desumus, semper sic fuisse, et esse creditum a Christianis, sicuti apud Nicoeam contra haeresim tuam Arianam, et omnes errores videtur esse sacra fides conscripta: eamdemque Fidem toto exsilii sui tempore scriptis palam libris, iisdem Nicaenae formulae verbis testatus est. Post reditum vero ab exsilio cum ad componenda Antiochenae Ecclesiae et Caesareensis provinciae dissidia, quae de Episcoporum suorum electione fuerant exortae, totus incubuisset, ad suam Ecclesiam in Sardiniam rediit, ubi quae causa illi obvenerit, cur novam Fidei Formulam conderet, et evulgaret, cur a Nicaena diversam, cur aliqua sui parte ambiguam et obscuram, nec divinari cuiquam liceat, nec tuto proferre. Haec nobis argumenta sunt, quibus jure putemus, alium a Lucifero fuisse Formulae hujusce auctorem.","english":"Finally, we add this argument as well, by which it is proven that this Formula is not to be attributed to Lucifer as its author: namely, that no time can be rightly established at which he ought to have confirmed his Faith by a public and written testimony; for in the Council of Milan, at which he was present as a legate of Pope Liberius, he professed the Nicene Creed alone before the Emperor Constantius, as he himself testifies in the book *That One Must Die for the Son of God* in these words: \"We, the legates, affirmed in your palace, and we did not cease to affirm, that it had always been believed by Christians, and is believed, just as the sacred faith appears to have been written at Nicaea against your Arian heresy and all errors.\" And he testified to the same Faith throughout the entire time of his exile in books openly written, using the very words of the Nicene Creed. After his return from exile, when he had devoted himself entirely to settling the disputes of the Church of Antioch and the province of Caesarea, which had arisen concerning the election of their bishops, he returned to his own church in Sardinia, where no one may either guess or safely assert what cause befell him that he should compose and publish a new Creed, one different from the Nicene, and in some part ambiguous and obscure. These are the arguments for us by which we rightly think that someone other than Lucifer was the author of this Formula.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Denique hoc etiam argumentum adjungimus","severity":"info","text":"This passage functions as the final argument in a cumulative case against Luciferian authorship, following earlier arguments in the treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Concilio Mediolanensi","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Milan (355) was a synod where Arian pressure forced the exile of orthodox bishops, including Pope Liberius; Lucifer's role as legate is attested in contemporary sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Moriendum esse pro Filio Dei","severity":"info","text":"This work by Lucifer of Cagliari is cited as evidence of his Nicene orthodoxy; its title is given in Latin, reflecting the source edition's citation practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Post reditum vero ab exsilio","severity":"info","text":"Lucifer's return from exile (c. 362) and subsequent involvement in the Antiochene schism is used to argue that no plausible occasion exists for him to have composed a new creed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nec divinari cuiquam liceat, nec tuto proferre","severity":"caution","text":"The author admits uncertainty about Lucifer's motives after his return, framing the argument as a plausible inference rather than a proven fact.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"alium a Lucifero fuisse Formulae hujusce auctorem","severity":"info","text":"The conclusion asserts non-Luciferian authorship of the Formula, which is the central thesis of the treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Formula' and its precise relation to the Nicene Creed is not specified; the author assumes the reader knows the text under discussion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Sed omnis de ipso auctore ambiguitas sublata nobis est, cum ipsissimam fere Fidei formulam jam ante a Paschasio Quesnello editam vidimus in tomo Operum D. Leonis PP. in Codice Canonum ecclesiasticorum, etc., cap. 38, et Venetis typis iterum vulgatam in tomo Operum eorumdem pag. 278, quae a Balleriniis Fratribus docto equidem, et erudito labore adversus Quesnelli errores illustrata fuerunt. Nomen haec praefert in titulo Faustini Presbyteri, eademque est, quae a Mabillonio Breve Fidei inscribitur ex Ms. Augiensi, ut Ballerinii testantur; idem-· que, ut autumamus, codex Augiensis est, quem Mabillonius in Itinere Germanico indicat a se visum Augiae: Liber in majori folio insignis, in quo habentur omnes Patrum expositiones in Orationem Dominicum, atque etiam variae Fidei Confessiones. Ms. Oxoniense, ex quo Quesnellus edidit Codicem Canonum, etc., hunc titulum exhibet: Faustini Presbyteri Fides missa Theodosio Imperatori; aliud Thuanense: Item Faustini Presbyteri confessio verae fidei, quam praefalis scribi et transmitti jussit Theodosius Imperator: corrigit Quesnellus in dissert. 14, num. quam a praefatis, etc., conjiciens jussu Theodosii descriptam fuisse a Faustino Fidem hanc, et a Theodosio ad Damasum missam, scriniis Sedis Apostolicae postmodum inserendam: unde in Codicem Romanum translata fuit; sed Quesnelli opinionem rejiciunt Ballerinii in Praefat.","english":"But all ambiguity concerning the author himself has been removed for us, since we have seen the very same Formula of Faith, almost word for word, already published earlier by Paschasius Quesnellus in the volume of the Works of Pope Leo the Great, in the Codex of Ecclesiastical Canons, etc., chapter 38, and again published in Venice in the volume of the same Works, page 278, which were elucidated by the Ballerini Brothers with indeed learned and erudite labor against the errors of Quesnellus. This text bears the name of the Presbyter Faustinus in its title, and it is the same one that is inscribed by Mabillonius as *Breve Fidei* from the Augiensis manuscript, as the Ballerini testify; and the same Augiensis codex, as we suppose, is the one that Mabillonius indicates in his *Iter Germanicum* as having been seen by him at Augia: a notable book in large folio, in which are contained all the Fathers' expositions on the Lord's Prayer, and also various Confessions of Faith. The Oxford manuscript, from which Quesnellus published the Codex of Canons, etc., bears this title: *The Faith of the Presbyter Faustinus Sent to the Emperor Theodosius*; another manuscript from the library of Thou: *Item, the Confession of the True Faith of the Presbyter Faustinus, which the Emperor Theodosius ordered to be written and transmitted*; Quesnellus corrects this in Dissertation 14, number, conjecturing that this Faith was copied by Faustinus at the command of Theodosius, and sent by Theodosius to Damasus, to be subsequently inserted into the archives of the Apostolic See; whence it was transferred into the Roman Codex; but the opinion of Quesnellus is rejected by the Ballerini in the Preface.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Paschasio Quesnello","severity":"info","text":"Paschasius Quesnel (1634–1719) was a French Jansenist theologian whose edition of the works of Pope Leo the Great included the Formula of Faith later attributed to Faustinus. His views were condemned by the Bull Unigenitus (1713).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Balleriniis Fratribus","severity":"info","text":"The Ballerini brothers, Pietro and Girolamo, were 18th-century Italian scholars who produced a critical edition of the works of Leo the Great, opposing Quesnel's Jansenist interpretations. Their work is cited here as authoritative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Codice Canonum ecclesiasticorum","severity":"info","text":"The Codex of Ecclesiastical Canons is a collection of conciliar decrees and patristic texts. Quesnel published the Formula from an Oxford manuscript (Ms. Oxoniense) within this codex, attributing it to Faustinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Ms. Augiensi","severity":"info","text":"The Augiensis manuscript (from Reichenau Abbey, Augia) is a large folio containing patristic expositions on the Lord's Prayer and various confessions of faith. Mabillon saw it and titled the Formula 'Breve Fidei'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustini Presbyteri Fides missa Theodosio Imperatori","severity":"info","text":"The Oxford manuscript titles the work as 'The Faith of the Presbyter Faustinus Sent to the Emperor Theodosius', while the Thuanense manuscript calls it a 'confession of true faith' ordered by Theodosius. These titles indicate the text's intended audience and purpose.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Quesnelli opinionem rejiciunt Ballerinii","severity":"caution","text":"The Ballerini reject Quesnel's conjecture that Theodosius ordered Faustinus to copy the Faith and sent it to Pope Damasus for insertion into the Roman archives. The editor sides with the Ballerini, but the dispute remains unresolved in this passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact relationship between the Augiensis manuscript and the Oxford manuscript is not specified; the editor assumes they are the same text but does not prove it.","The precise number of Quesnel's Dissertation 14 is left incomplete ('num. quam a praefatis'), possibly a textual corruption or omission."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"ad novam hujusce Codicis editionem, quem existimant neque in Italia, neque Roomae, sed in Gallia elaboratum fuisse; et ex ms. Vindohonensi ejusdem Codicis hunc titulum afferunt: Item Faustini Presbyteri confessio verae fidei, quam Presbyter scribit sibi transmitti jussit Theodosius Imperator; nolant Ballerinii, scripsit, et sibi, etc.\n\nTres igitur codices vetustissimi Fidem hanc Faustino tribuunt; Faustinus autem alius non occurrit, uti animadvertit Quesnellus in Disserit. laudata, qui fuerit auctor hujus libelli, praeter Faustinum illum Luciferianum Presbyterum, qui cum ad Flaccillam Theodosii Imperatoris uxorem libros septem scripserit adversus Arianos et Macedonianos, et libellum precum cum Marcellino Presbytero Theodosio ipsi obtulerit, facile potuit ad eumdem Imperatorem libellum mittere Fidei suae testem: eujus quidem sententiae assentimur.","english":"To the new edition of this Codex, which they believe was produced not in Italy nor in Rome, but in Gaul; and from the Viennese manuscript of the same Codex they adduce this title: *Item Faustini Presbyteri confessio verae fidei, quam Presbyter scribit sibi transmitti jussit Theodosius Imperator*; the Ballerini note: *scripsit, et sibi*, etc.\n\nThree very ancient codices therefore attribute this Faith to Faustinus; but no other Faustinus occurs, as Quesnellus observes in the cited Dissertation, who was the author of this little book, besides that Luciferian Presbyter Faustinus, who, having written seven books against the Arians and Macedonians to Flaccilla, the wife of the Emperor Theodosius, and having presented a little book of prayers together with the Presbyter Marcellinus to Theodosius himself, could easily have sent to the same Emperor a little book as a witness of his Faith; to which opinion we assent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Tres igitur codices vetustissimi Fidem hanc Faustino tribuunt","severity":"info","text":"The author cites three ancient codices attributing the Formula of Faith to Faustinus, a key piece of external evidence for authorship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustinum illum Luciferianum Presbyterum","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus was a Luciferian presbyter, a follower of Lucifer of Cagliari, who opposed Arianism and wrote to Emperor Theodosius and his wife Flaccilla.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Quesnellus in Disserit. laudata","severity":"info","text":"Quesnellus is cited as having previously identified Faustinus as the author, indicating scholarly reception of the attribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Quesnellus"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"libellum mittere Fidei suae testem","severity":"info","text":"The passage argues that Faustinus could have sent a libellus as a witness of his faith, linking the work's purpose to a personal confession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nolant Ballerinii, scripsit, et sibi, etc.","severity":"caution","text":"The Ballerini note a textual variant (scripsit, et sibi) in the manuscript title, indicating uncertainty in the exact wording of the attribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Ballerini"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustinus ... cum ad Flaccillam Theodosii Imperatoris uxorem libros septem scripserit","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus wrote seven books against Arians and Macedonians to Flaccilla, wife of Theodosius I (reigned 379–395), placing his activity in the late 4th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact reading of the manuscript title (scripsit, et sibi) is uncertain, as noted by the Ballerini.","The identity of 'Faustinus' is inferred from Quesnellus's argument, but no other contemporary Faustinus is known."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Causam vero, cur Faustinus libellum suae Fidei ederet, hanc Quesnellus ibidem significat; quia nimirum a Turbone Episcopo Eleutheropolis, qua in urbe Faustinus Roma eum Marcellino et ipso Luciferiano pulsus propter schisma Ursicini tunc degebat, veluti errorum Sabellii et Apollinaris assecla una cum collega suo vexaretur: nam de Turbone graviter conqueritur ipse Faustinus et suo et Marcellini nomine in Libello precum ad Imperatores Eleutheropoli misso, scilicet Valentinianum, Theodosium, et Arcadium, ut in Praefat, ad Libellum precum: Egregius, inquit, Turbo Eleutheropolitanae Episcopus civitatis, nostram exiguitatem despiciens.....postquam audivit quosdam se integrae Fidei copulare, et per Dei gratiam rem veri crescere, nobis exitia minitatur, et turbat. Sive autem Faustinus Fidem suam ultro Theodosio obtulerit, sive a Theodosio jussus, tempus, quo illam edidit, non ante annum Quesnellus constituit, cui assignantur imperii Theodosiani exordia, nec diu post; quia altum in illa de Macedonio silentium, ac de concilio Constantinopolitano primo, a quo damnatus est an. 381, tum quod alio modo de errore contra Spiritum sanctum non loquatur, quam quo adversus illum haereticum scripserunt Alexandrini Concilii Patres in Epistola Synodica an. 362. Lequienius in tom, 3. Orient. Christ.","english":"The reason, however, why Faustinus published his booklet of Faith, Quesnellus indicates in the same place: namely, because he was harassed by Turbo, Bishop of Eleutheropolis—in which city Faustinus, driven from Rome along with Marcellinus and the Luciferian himself on account of the Ursicinian schism, was then living—as a follower of the errors of Sabellius and Apollinaris, together with his colleague. For Faustinus himself complains bitterly about Turbo, both in his own name and in that of Marcellinus, in the *Libellus precum* sent to the Emperors from Eleutheropolis, namely Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, as in the Preface to the *Libellus precum*: \"The eminent Turbo,\" he says, \"Bishop of the city of Eleutheropolis, despising our insignificance... after he heard that certain persons were joining themselves to the sound Faith, and that through the grace of God the truth of the matter was increasing, threatens us with destruction and creates disturbance.\" Whether Faustinus offered his Faith to Theodosius of his own accord, or was commanded by Theodosius, Quesnellus sets the time of its publication not before the year to which the beginnings of Theodosius's reign are assigned, nor long after; because of the deep silence in it concerning Macedonius, and concerning the First Council of Constantinople, by which he was condemned in the year 381, and also because it speaks of the error against the Holy Spirit in no other way than that in which the Fathers of the Council of Alexandria wrote against that heretic in the Synodal Letter of the year 362. Lequienius, in vol. 3 of *Oriens Christianus*.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Turbone Episcopo Eleutheropolis","severity":"info","text":"Turbo, bishop of Eleutheropolis, is known only from this controversy. Eleutheropolis (modern Beit Guvrin, Israel) was a city in Palaestina Prima.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Libello precum","severity":"info","text":"The Libellus precum is a petition to the emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius, written by Faustinus and Marcellinus, complaining about persecution by Turbo. It survives and is a key source for Luciferian history.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"non ante annum ... nec diu post","severity":"info","text":"Quesnel dates Faustinus's Profession of Faith to the early years of Theodosius I (reigned 379–395), before 381, because it does not mention the condemnation of Macedonius at the First Council of Constantinople (381).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Lequienius in tom, 3. Orient. Christ.","severity":"info","text":"Michel Le Quien (1661–1733), in his Oriens Christianus (vol. 3, 1740), is cited as a source for the dating argument based on silence about Macedonius and the Council of Alexandria (362).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Sive autem Faustinus Fidem suam ultro Theodosio obtulerit, sive a Theodosio jussus","severity":"caution","text":"The text leaves uncertain whether Faustinus offered his Profession of Faith voluntarily or at Theodosius's command. This ambiguity affects interpretation of the document's purpose and authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["Whether Faustinus offered his Profession of Faith voluntarily or was commanded by Theodosius is left unresolved.","The precise year of publication is not given, only inferred as early in Theodosius's reign, before 381."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"in Episcopis Eleutheropolitanis initia Episcopatus Turbonis ad idem quodam modo tempus referre videtur, quem ait ad obitum fere Theodosii, ad in scilicet 395, Episcopatum tenuisse; ignotus autem est annus, quo Eutychius ante Turbonem Episcopus decesserit. Auctore igitur hujusce Formulae comperto, et tempore, quo scripta fuit, tum illius scribendae cognita causa, quam parum Quesnelli exemplar differat a nostro, videamus. Faustinus brevem excusationem ibi praefigit, cur praeter Nicaenam Fidem ipse aliam scripserit, ne videretur nimirum decreta infringere Synodi Sardicensis, quae Alexandrina probaverat, vetantis ne deinceps novae Fidei Formulae a quoquam ederentur; hoc vero exordium abest ab exemplari nostro ex codice Ambrosiano. Tum suam ipse Fidem testatur iisdem omnino verbis, praeter haec, de se sius initio genitum, non factum; cum exemplari Ambrosiano quaedam his obscuritas insit, et ambiguitas, ut superius monuimus. Demum paucis a calumnia haeresis Apollinaristae sibi illata sese defendit, et eos damnat, qui tres hypostases confitentur, quae itidem clausula deest Ambrosiano.","english":"It seems to refer the beginnings of Turbo's episcopate among the Bishops of Eleutheropolis to roughly the same time, whom he says held the episcopate almost until the death of Theodosius, that is, until 395; but the year in which Eutychius, the bishop before Turbo, died is unknown. Therefore, having discovered the author of this Formula, and the time when it was written, and also the known reason for its composition, let us see how little Quesnellus's copy differs from ours. Faustinus prefixes a brief excuse there as to why he wrote another Faith besides the Nicene, lest he seem, of course, to violate the decrees of the Synod of Sardica, which had approved the Alexandrian [creed], forbidding that any new Formulas of Faith be published by anyone thereafter; this exordium, however, is absent from our copy from the Ambrosian codex. Then he himself attests his Faith in exactly the same words, except for these: \"begotten, not made, from the beginning of himself\"; since in the Ambrosian copy a certain obscurity and ambiguity inheres in these matters, as we noted above. Finally, he briefly defends himself against the calumny of the Apollinarist heresy brought against him, and condemns those who confess three hypostases, which clause is likewise absent from the Ambrosian [copy].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"ad obitum fere Theodosii, ad in scilicet 395","severity":"info","text":"The death of Theodosius I is dated to 395, anchoring the chronology of Turbo's episcopate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Synodi Sardicensis","severity":"info","text":"The Synod of Sardica (c. 343) forbade the composition of new creeds, a decree cited by Faustinus to justify his own Formula.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"exemplari nostro ex codice Ambrosiano","severity":"info","text":"The author compares Quesnellus's copy with an Ambrosian codex, noting textual variants such as the absence of Faustinus's exordium and the clause on three hypostases.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tres hypostases","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'three hypostases' was a point of contention; Faustinus condemns those who confess it, aligning with anti-Apollinarist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"de se sius initium genitum, non factum","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'begotten, not made, from the beginning of himself' is noted as obscure and ambiguous in the Ambrosian copy, suggesting possible textual corruption or doctrinal nuance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact year of Eutychius's death is unknown, leaving a gap in the episcopal succession of Eleutheropolis.","The phrase 'de se sius initium genitum, non factum' is textually uncertain; the reading 'sius' may be a scribal error or abbreviation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Verum ita animadvertit Quesnellus: Faustinus, uti ejus etiam collega Marcellinus, Luciferiano schismate infectus erat, ideoque Concilii Alexandrini decreto adversabatur, quo sancitum fuerat, ut Arianae communionis participes sub Imperatore Constantio, Episcopi praesertim, in gratiam cum Catholicis reciperentur. Hinc Sabelliani, et Apollinaristae erroris suspectus habebatur: Patres etenim Synodi Alexandrinae decreverant, ut ab iis, qui ad Ecclesiam ex Arianorum societate redibant, Sabellii quoque impia dogmata damnarentur; tum ut iidem confiterentur Spiritum sanctum non creaturam, neque alienum, sed proprium esse et indivisum ab essentia Patris et Filii; denique stolidum Apollinaris errorem exsecrarentur, qui docuerat, inanime corpus, et sensus mentisque expers sibimet Verbum Dei Filium assumpsisse.","english":"But Quesnellus observes thus: Faustinus, like his colleague Marcellinus, was infected with the Luciferian schism, and therefore opposed the decree of the Council of Alexandria, by which it had been established that participants in Arian communion under the Emperor Constantius, especially bishops, should be received back into grace with the Catholics. Hence he was held suspect of the Sabellian and Apollinarist error: for the Fathers of the Synod of Alexandria had decreed that those who returned to the Church from association with the Arians should also condemn the impious dogmas of Sabellius; likewise that they should confess the Holy Spirit not to be a creature, nor alien, but proper to and undivided from the essence of the Father and the Son; finally, that they should execrate the foolish error of Apollinaris, who had taught that the Word of God, the Son, assumed a body without life and devoid of sensation and mind.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Luciferiano schismate","severity":"info","text":"The Luciferian schism, named after Lucifer of Cagliari, involved a refusal to readmit former Arians to communion, a rigorist position that led to a break with mainstream Catholicism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Concilii Alexandrini","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Alexandria (likely 362 AD) under Athanasius decreed leniency toward former Arians, requiring only condemnation of Arianism and Sabellianism, not additional penance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Sabelliani","severity":"info","text":"Sabellianism, associated with Sabellius, taught a modalist view of the Trinity, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes of one God, often seen as heretical by Nicene Christians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Apollinaristae","severity":"info","text":"Apollinarism, taught by Apollinaris of Laodicea, held that Christ had a human body but a divine mind, denying a full human soul in Christ, condemned as heretical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Quesnellus","severity":"info","text":"Quesnellus (Pasquier Quesnel, 1634–1719) was a French Jansenist theologian; his observation here reflects a later Catholic scholarly perspective on the Luciferian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Verum ita animadvertit Quesnellus","severity":"info","text":"This passage introduces a scholarly opinion (Quesnellus) to explain Faustinus's opposition to the Alexandrian decree, linking it to Luciferian schism and suspicion of Sabellianism and Apollinarism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text does not specify which Council of Alexandria is meant, but context suggests the 362 synod under Athanasius.","The phrase 'Luciferiano schismate infectus' may imply a personal infection or mere association; the reading taken is that Faustinus was a partisan of the schism."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Idcirco Faustinus, ne videretur catholicam doctrinam a Patribus Alexandrinis propositam, et Ecclesiae totius consensu probatam respuere, dum decretum de iis, qui ab Arianis redierant, excipiendis rejiciebat, Sabellium nominatim damnat, et adversus illius errorem personas in Trinitate aperte distinguit; Spiritus sancti divinam esse naturam iisdem pene Synodi verbis fatetur, ac Apollinaris haeresim perspicue detestatur; de concessa autem lapsis indulgentia omnino silet; et trium hypostasum usum, de quo veluti haereseos suspecto fuerant lapsi accusati ante, quam veniam obtinerent, cujusque rectum et catholicum sensum Synodo probaverant, omnino negat inter catholicos esse ferendum: unde alia causa cur Sabellianus diceretur ab iis, qui tres hypostases in Trinitate fatebantur, id est tres personas; Sabellius enim Deum asserebat, hoc est unam in Deo personam esse Patrem et Filium, ut ait Athanasius in expositione Fidei; et de Spiritu sancto perinde ac de Filio sentiebat, ut eos faceret, neque a Patris persona separaret, sed unam eamdemque ac veluti primariam hypostasim statueret, cujus duae illae Filii et Spiritus Sancti essent, ait Petavius in lib. I, cap. 6.","english":"Therefore Faustinus, lest he seem to reject the Catholic doctrine proposed by the Alexandrian Fathers and approved by the consensus of the whole Church, while he rejected the decree concerning the reception of those who had returned from the Arians, expressly condemns Sabellius and, against his error, openly distinguishes the persons in the Trinity; he confesses the divine nature of the Holy Spirit in almost the same words of the Synod, and clearly detests the heresy of Apollinaris; but concerning the indulgence granted to the lapsed he is altogether silent; and he utterly denies that the use of the three hypostases, on account of which the lapsed had been accused as if suspected of heresy before they obtained pardon, and whose correct and Catholic meaning they had approved to the Synod, is to be tolerated among Catholics: whence there is another reason why he would be called a Sabellian by those who confessed three hypostases in the Trinity, that is, three persons; for Sabellius asserted that God, that is, that there is one person in God, the Father and the Son, as Athanasius says in the Exposition of the Faith; and he thought concerning the Holy Spirit just as concerning the Son, so as to make them neither separate from the person of the Father, but to establish one and the same and, as it were, primary hypostasis, of which those two, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, were parts, as Petavius says in Book I, chapter 6.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Faustinus","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus, a Luciferian bishop, opposed the Council of Alexandria's decree readmitting former Arians, as noted in the previous passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tres hypostases","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'three hypostases' (Greek τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις) was a Nicene term for three persons in the Trinity, contested by Sabellians who saw it as tritheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Petavius","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Petavius (Dionysius Petavius, 1583–1652) in his 'De Trinitate' (Book I, ch. 6) shows the passage's use in early modern Catholic theological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Petavius 1643"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Athanasius","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Athanasius' 'Expositio Fidei' (likely the 'Expositio fidei' attributed to him) anchors the anti-Sabellian argument in patristic authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Athanasius 4th century"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Idcirco Faustinus","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative from the previous passage, explaining Faustinus' theological motives and his silence on indulgence for the lapsed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Sabellius","severity":"caution","text":"The description of Sabellius' view as 'unam in Deo personam' may oversimplify; ancient sources vary on whether Sabellius denied all distinction in the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Synod' referred to is ambiguous; it likely means the Council of Alexandria (362) but could be another synod approving the three hypostases.","The phrase 'expositione Fidei' attributed to Athanasius may be spurious or a later compilation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Verum cum Graecum nomen pro sive essentia veteres Patres adhibuerint praesertim ante Nicaenum Concilium, et re vera tum id significet, quod simpliciter existit, id est essentiam, tum id, quod per se subsistit, individuum scilicet, seu personam, de quibus vide Petavium in lib. IV, cap. 1, 4, 7, hoc individui sensu Graeci Patres illud postea usurparunt, quo ab iis etiam, qui ad rectae Fidei communionem ab Arianis reversi fuerant, usurpabatur; nam trium hypostasum nomine non tres essentias, nec tres Deos, aut tria principia intelligebant, sed tres in Trinitate personas, Patrem, qui vere sit et subsistat, Filium ut existentem et subsistentem, et Spiritum sanctum, ut subsistentem, et existentem: quod Epistola Synodica Alexandrina testatur. Ita disputationes quieverant litesque tum de voce exortae praesertim Antiochiae, unde Antiochenum schisma conflatum, teste Basilio ep. 349, veter. edit. apud Petavium lib. IV, cap. 4, num. 11, cum Terentio Comiti scribit, haud parvi momenti se quaestiones illas ducere, ob quas initio schisma conflatum est: quo in loco advertendum dissidium hocce inter Graecos Orientales primo coepisse, non inter Graecos et Latinos, ut affirmat praefatio in Synodicas litteras Concilii Alexandrini tom. 2, Concil. Ven. Edit. prioris.","english":"Indeed, since the ancient Fathers, especially before the Council of Nicaea, employed the Greek term for \"substance\" or \"essence,\" and since that term truly signifies both that which simply exists, i.e., essence, and that which subsists by itself, i.e., an individual or person—on which matters see Petavius in Book IV, chapters 1, 4, 7—the Greek Fathers later used it in this individual sense, just as it was also used by those who had returned to communion with the right Faith from the Arians; for by the name of three hypostases they understood not three essences, nor three Gods, nor three principles, but three persons in the Trinity: the Father, who truly is and subsists; the Son, as existing and subsisting; and the Holy Spirit, as subsisting and existing. This the Synodal Letter of Alexandria attests. Thus the disputes had quieted, and the controversies that had arisen concerning the term, especially at Antioch—whence the Antiochene schism was kindled, as Basil testifies in Epistle 349 of the old edition, in Petavius Book IV, chapter 4, number 11, when he writes to Count Terentius that he considers those questions, on account of which the schism was initially kindled, to be of no small moment. In this passage it is to be noted that this dissension first began among the Eastern Greeks, not between Greeks and Latins, as the preface to the Synodal Letters of the Council of Alexandria, in volume 2 of the Venetian edition of the Councils, affirms.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"hypostasis","severity":"info","text":"The Greek term hypostasis is here distinguished from ousia (essence) and used to denote an individual subsistence or person, a key development in Trinitarian theology after Nicaea.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Antiochenum schisma","severity":"info","text":"The Antiochene schism, referenced via Basil of Caesarea, was a fourth-century dispute among Eastern Christians over the use of hypostasis, not a Latin-Greek conflict, as the author notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Basil of Caesarea"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Petavius","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Denis Pétau (Petavius), a 17th-century Jesuit scholar, whose De Trinitate (Dogmata Theologica, vol. 2) is used as a source for patristic usage of hypostasis and ousia.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Denis Pétau 1644"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola Synodica Alexandrina","severity":"info","text":"The Synodal Letter of Alexandria is invoked as a witness that the three hypostases were understood as three persons, not three essences, supporting the author's argument for Nicene orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Concil. Ven. Edit. prioris","severity":"caution","text":"The reference to the Venetian edition of the Councils (prioris) is ambiguous; the author disputes its claim that the schism began between Greeks and Latins, but the exact edition is not specified.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise identity of the 'Synodal Letter of Alexandria' is not given; it may refer to the letter of the Council of Alexandria (362) under Athanasius.","The 'Venetian edition of the Councils' (Concil. Ven. Edit. prioris) is not further identified; likely the 17th-century edition by Giovanni Domenico Mansi or earlier."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"At, quo tempore Faustinus hanc Fidem edidit, sopitus ignis contentionis vehementius jam exarserat, quem Latini quoque fovebant ingenti partium studio; alii quippe nomine volebant intelligi, id est essentiam, seu substantiam; alii personam, seu subsistentiam personalem, et inter sese substantiam, hi pro subsistentia, illi pro essentia interpretantes, de vi ipsa vocum earumdem in Latino sermone decertabant. Quare Faustinus, cum substantiae voce essentiam significari contenderet, tres substantias in Trinitate negat esse enuntiandas; consequens quippe erat, ut tres Deos confiterentur, qui tres substantias illa significatione confitebantur; et in ipsa Fide describenda substantiae nomen, quatenus essentiam exprimit, pene de industria repetiisse videtur: illi vero, qui nomine personam exprimi aiebant, Faustinum, ejusque collegam Marcellinum Sabellianismi accusabant, quippe unam in Trinitate personam defendere ipsis viderentur. Et ex hisce conjicere licet, Faustinum hanc etiam ob causam mentionem injecisse in Formulam Fidei de tribus substantiis, ut nimirum Damasi Romani Pontificis gratiam aucuparetur, cui in Schismate Ursicini fuerat intensus; Damasus enim de trium controversia silentium indixerat, uti vult Baronius ad an. 372, ex litteris Cyrilli Alexandrini, et in Hieronymi sententiam concesserat, qui trium hypostasum usum improbabat.","english":"At the time when Faustinus published this Creed, the fire of contention, which had been smoldering, had already blazed up more fiercely, and the Latins also were fanning it with great partisan zeal. For some wished the term to be understood as essence, that is, ousia or substantia; others as person, that is, personal subsistence, and they were disputing among themselves about substantia, some interpreting it as subsistence, others as essence, concerning the very force of these same words in the Latin language. Therefore Faustinus, since he maintained that the word substantia signified essence, denied that three substances should be spoken of in the Trinity; for it followed that those who confessed three substances in that sense would be confessing three Gods; and in describing the Creed itself, he seems to have repeated the name substantia, insofar as it expresses essence, almost deliberately. But those who said that the term expressed person accused Faustinus and his colleague Marcellinus of Sabellianism, since they seemed to them to defend one person in the Trinity. And from these things it is possible to conjecture that Faustinus also introduced mention of three substances into the Formula of the Creed for this reason, namely, to curry the favor of Damasus, the Roman Pontiff, to whom he had been hostile in the Ursicinian Schism; for Damasus had imposed silence on the controversy about the three, as Baronius holds for the year 372, from the letters of Cyril of Alexandria, and had conceded to the opinion of Jerome, who disapproved of the use of three hypostases.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Ursicinian Schism (366–367) was a conflict over the election of Pope Damasus I, with Faustinus supporting the antipope Ursinus. This passage explains Faustinus's later theological alignment with Damasus as a political maneuver.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"substantia","severity":"info","text":"The Latin term substantia is ambiguous, translating both Greek ousia (essence) and hypostasis (individual subsistence). The passage highlights the theological dispute over its meaning in Trinitarian doctrine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Baronius's Annales Ecclesiastici for the year 372, referencing letters of Cyril of Alexandria and Jerome's disapproval of three hypostases. This shows the post-Reformation Catholic historiography shaping the interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Baronius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The claim that Damasus 'imposed silence' on the three-substance controversy and 'conceded to Jerome' is not directly verifiable from surviving sources; it may reflect the author's inference or partisan reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage serves as a historical excursus within the treatise, explaining the context of Faustinus's Creed and the motives behind its wording, particularly the mention of 'three substances'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Faustinus' and 'Marcellinus' is not fully clarified; they may be the same person or distinct figures. The text treats them as colleagues."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Quamquam cum sit incertum, utrum Eleutheropoli versaretur Faustinus, dum Fidem edidit, quod putat Quesnellus, an alia in urbe, certe in Oriente, ubi contentio adhuc fervebat de usu, sensuque trium hypostasum, hinc conjectura ducimur ad credendum, omnem hujus Fidei scribendae causam illi fuisse, ut, cum unam esse, id est essetiam seu substantiam Trinitatis affirmaret, ab eorum calumniis sese defenderet, qui tres hypostases fatebantur eo sensu, qui ab Alexandrina Synodo probatus fuerat, et vocis hujus vim pro sua ipsorum sententia interpretantes, Sabellianismi caeteros accusabant, qui aliter illam interpretarentur. Quare Faustinus suam Fidem exhibet Imperatori ita, ut cum catholica doctrina Synodi omnino conveniat, autem, et substantiae voces sua tantummodo interpretatione velit esse explicandas: quod ipsum Formulae initium significat: Primae fidei confessionem contra Sabellium signamus et contra hos, qui sub nomine Catholicae Fidei impia verba defendunt, dicentes tres esse substantias.","english":"Although it is uncertain whether Faustinus was at Eleutheropolis when he published this Creed, as Quesnellus thinks, or in another city, certainly in the East, where the contention still raged concerning the use and meaning of the three hypostases, we are led by conjecture to believe that the entire cause for his writing this Creed was that, by affirming that the Trinity is one, that is, one essence or substance, he might defend himself from the calumnies of those who confessed three hypostases in the sense approved by the Synod of Alexandria, and who, interpreting the force of this word according to their own opinion, accused the rest of Sabellianism, who interpreted it otherwise. Therefore Faustinus presents his Creed to the Emperor in such a way that, while it entirely agrees with the Catholic doctrine of the Synod, he wishes the words essence and substance to be explained only by his own interpretation: which the very beginning of the Formula signifies: \"We sign the first confession of faith against Sabellius and against those who, under the name of the Catholic Faith, defend impious words, saying that there are three substances.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Synod of Alexandria (362) under Athanasius approved the use of 'three hypostases' in a Nicene sense, distinguishing it from Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"hypostases","severity":"info","text":"The Greek term 'hypostasis' (plural 'hypostases') is here contrasted with 'essence' (ousia) and 'substance' (substantia), reflecting the Trinitarian controversy over whether the three are one substance or three subsistences.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Quesnellus (likely the Jansenist theologian Pasquier Quesnel) as a modern authority on Faustinus's location, indicating the passage's reception in early modern scholarship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage concludes by quoting the opening of Faustinus's Formula, framing the Creed as a defense against both Sabellianism and those who assert three substances.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The author admits the location of Faustinus is uncertain ('incertum'), and the entire causal explanation is presented as conjecture ('conjectura ducimur').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact city where Faustinus published the Creed is unknown; the author follows Quesnellus's suggestion of Eleutheropolis but leaves it open.","The precise sense of 'hypostases' approved by the Synod of Alexandria is not specified, only that it differed from the interpretation of Faustinus's opponents."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Atque haec satis de Formula Faustini; quae num Lucifero conveniant, quisquam facile cognoscit, ipsis solummodo Fidei verbis spectatis, et consilio, quo edita fuit. At quis dixerit, Fidem a Lucifero quidem scriptam a Faustino in suam Formulam, additis exordio et clausula, adscitam, ut magis ex ipso auctore probaretur. Verum Luciferi nomen non siluisset Faustinus, quem in Libello precum tot laudibus semel atque iterum ornat; ac demum ex hactenus dictis ita potest recte constitui, Formulam Fidei, quam ex Ambrosiano Codice hic exhibemus, Lucifero, qui Nicaenae Fidei Formulam unice secutus est, qui nihil umquam ambiguum, nihil obscurum de Trinitate scripsit, qui decreta Synodi Alexandrinae suo assensu confirmavit, qui Sabellii errores palam exsecratus est in lib. de non conv. cum haeret. et nullius haeretici erroris in suspicionem umquam adductus fuit, illam, inquam, Fidei Formulam non esse tribuendam, sed vel ab inscito quopiam homine, vel secta Luciferiano e Faustiniana Formula depromptam, ambiguis, quae notavimus, corruptam vocibus, et aut inscite, aut fraudulenter Lucifero ascriptam, quinto circiter saeculo, postea, illius nomine praefixo, Codici Ambrosiano insertam fuisse. Addere haec lubet ex Praefatione tomi primi Opp. Sirmondi Venet. Edit. num.: Cum eo Libello Precum Marcellini et Faustini traditam fuisse Imperatoribus fidei Confessionem, quae in Codice Canonum et Constit.","english":"And this is enough concerning the Formula of Faustinus; whether it agrees with Lucifer, anyone may easily discern, simply by considering the words of the Creed itself and the purpose for which it was published. But someone might say that the Creed was indeed written by Lucifer, but was taken up by Faustinus into his own Formula, with a beginning and a conclusion added, so that it might be more approved on the authority of the author himself. However, Faustinus would not have kept silent about Lucifer's name, whom he adorns with so many praises again and again in the Libellus Precum; and finally, from what has been said thus far, it can be rightly established that the Formula of the Creed, which we here present from the Ambrosian Codex, is not to be attributed to Lucifer—who followed solely the Formula of the Nicene Creed, who never wrote anything ambiguous or obscure concerning the Trinity, who confirmed the decrees of the Synod of Alexandria with his assent, who publicly execrated the errors of Sabellius in his book De non conveniendo cum haereticis, and who was never brought under suspicion of any heretical error—but rather that it was either taken by some ignorant person or by a Luciferian sect from the Faustinian Formula, corrupted by the ambiguous words which we have noted, and either ignorantly or fraudulently ascribed to Lucifer, and inserted into the Ambrosian Codex with his name prefixed, around the fifth century. It is pleasing to add this from the Preface of the first volume of the Works of Sirmond, Venetian Edition, number: That with that Libellus Precum of Marcellinus and Faustinus, a Confession of Faith was handed over to the Emperors, which in the Codex of Canons and Constitutions...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Libellus Precum is a petition to the emperors by the Luciferian presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, c. 384, defending their schism and attacking Damasus of Rome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Ambrosian Codex is a Milanese manuscript collection of creeds and canons, possibly from the 5th–6th century, used by Sirmond and later editors to transmit the Formula attributed to Lucifer.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The editor here rejects Lucifer's authorship of the Formula, arguing it was extracted from Faustinus's work, corrupted, and falsely ascribed to Lucifer around the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the Synod of Alexandria (likely 362) and execration of Sabellius aligns with Lucifer's known anti-Sabellian stance in De non conveniendo cum haereticis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The editor cites the Venetian edition of Sirmond's works (likely 1728) for the claim that a confession of faith accompanied the Libellus Precum in the Codex of Canons and Constitutions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The passage's argument is conjectural: the editor infers Faustinus would have named Lucifer if he used his creed, but this is an argument from silence and not conclusive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'ignorant person' or 'Luciferian sect' that allegedly corrupted the Formula is unspecified.","The exact date of insertion into the Ambrosian Codex is given only as 'around the fifth century' without further evidence."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Ecclesiae Rom. ante viginti annos edito in Append. ad S. Leonis Opera edit. an. 1675, pag. 138. Faustini Presbyteri Fides missa Theodosio Imperatori inscribitur, aliqui existimant: verum cum in Praefatione Libelli ejusdem, quae Schismatici hominis est, Imperatores dicantur Valentinianus, Theodosius, et Arcadius, Libellus Precum in annum rejici debet, quo Arcadius renunciatus est Augustus, nec anno postponi potest, quo Valentinianus decessit: id autem cum anno editae Fidei nequit convenire: alii Libellum Confessione Fidei posteriorem aliquot annis censent: quod esse verisimilius videtur. Utriusque Fidei exemplum sub uno aspectu hic jam subjiciamus.\n\nEx Membranaceo Codice Ms. Bibliothecae Ambrosianae signato I, 101, in parte superiori.\n\nEx Cod. Canonum et Constitutorum Sanctae Sedis Apostolicae, in tom, Opp. D. Leonis Ven. Edit. an. 1757, col. 278.","english":"The Faith of Faustinus the Presbyter, sent to the Emperor Theodosius, is inscribed in the Appendix to the Works of St. Leo, edition of 1675, page 138, published twenty years ago by the Roman Church; some think this: but since in the Preface of that same little book, which is the work of a schismatic man, the Emperors are called Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the Libellus Precum must be referred to the year in which Arcadius was proclaimed Augustus, and cannot be placed after the year in which Valentinian died: this, however, cannot agree with the year in which the Faith was published: others judge the little book to be some years later than the Confession of Faith: which seems more likely. Let us now set down the example of each Faith under one view.\n\nFrom a Membranaceous Codex Ms. of the Ambrosian Library marked I, 101, in the upper part.\n\nFrom the Codex of Canons and Constitutions of the Holy Apostolic See, in the volume of the Works of the Lord Leo, Venetian Edition of 1757, column 278.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Faustini Presbyteri Fides missa Theodosio Imperatori","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus was a Luciferian presbyter; his 'Fides' (Creed) was addressed to Emperor Theodosius I, likely in the 380s, as part of the Luciferian schism's appeal for recognition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Libellus Precum","severity":"info","text":"The 'Libellus Precum' (Book of Petitions) is dated by the mention of Emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius; Arcadius became Augustus in 383, and Valentinian II died in 392, placing the Libellus between these years.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Ex Membranaceo Codice Ms. Bibliothecae Ambrosianae signato I, 101","severity":"info","text":"The editor cites a manuscript from the Ambrosian Library (Milan), shelfmark I, 101, as a source for one version of the Creed, indicating a textual tradition independent of the printed edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Ex Cod. Canonum et Constitutorum Sanctae Sedis Apostolicae","severity":"info","text":"Another source is a codex of canons and constitutions of the Holy See, printed in the Venetian edition of Leo's works (1757), column 278, showing the Creed's inclusion in canonical collections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"aliqui existimant","severity":"caution","text":"The editor notes that some attribute the 'Fides' to Faustinus, but the preface is schismatic; the dating of the Libellus Precum conflicts with the Creed's publication year, so the relationship between the two texts is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact year of the Creed's publication and its relation to the Libellus Precum remain uncertain; the editor suggests the Libellus is later than the Confession of Faith, but does not resolve the chronology definitively."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"INCIPIT a FIDES S. LUCIFERI EPISCOPI.\n\nNos Patrem credimus qui non sit Filius, sed habeat Filium de se sine initio non ad se factum. Et Filium credimus qui non sit Pater, sed habeat Patrem de quo sit genitus, non factus. Et Spiritum sanctum credimus qui sit vere spiritus Dei: unde Divinae Trinitatis unam substantiam confitemur, quia qualis est Pater secundum substantiam, talem genuit Filium. Et Spiritus sanctus non creatura existens, sed spiritus Dei, non est alienus a substantia Patris et Filii, sed est ipse ejusdem substantiae cum Patre et Filio sicuti ejusdem Deitatis. Explicit.\n\nFIDES FAUSTINI PRESBYTERI Missa Theodosio Imperatori.\n\nSufficiebat fides conscripta adversas haeresim Arianam. Sed quia pravo ingenio quidam sub illius fidei confessione impia verba commutant d, nobis invidiam facientes, quod velut haeresim Sabellii tueamur; paucis et contra Sabellium primae fidei confessione e signamus; et contra hos, qui sub nomine catholicae fidei impia verba defendunt, dicentes tres esse substantias; cum semper catholica fides unam substantiam Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti confessa sit.","english":"Here begins the Faith of Saint Lucifer the Bishop.\n\nWe believe that the Father is not the Son, but has a Son from himself without beginning, not made unto himself. And we believe that the Son is not the Father, but has a Father from whom he was begotten, not made. And we believe that the Holy Spirit is truly the Spirit of God: whence we confess one substance of the Divine Trinity, because as the Father is according to substance, so he begot the Son. And the Holy Spirit, not being a creature but the Spirit of God, is not alien from the substance of the Father and the Son, but is himself of the same substance with the Father and the Son, as he is of the same Deity. Here ends.\n\nThe Faith of Faustinus the Presbyter, sent to the Emperor Theodosius.\n\nThe faith written against the Arian heresy was sufficient. But because certain men with perverse ingenuity, under that confession of faith, change the impious words, making us odious, as if we were defending the heresy of Sabellius; with few words we also sign against Sabellius the first confession of faith; and against those who, under the name of the catholic faith, defend impious words, saying there are three substances; whereas the catholic faith has always confessed one substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"INCIPIT / EXPLICIT","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two distinct creeds: the Fides Luciferi and the Fides Faustini, each with its own incipit and explicit, marking them as separate textual units within the compilation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"substantia","severity":"info","text":"The Latin substantia (Greek ousia) is the key theological term for the shared divine essence. The creeds affirm una substantia against Arian subordination and Sabellian modalism, and reject the phrase tres substantias as impious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Sabellius","severity":"info","text":"Sabellius (3rd century) taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are modes of a single divine subject, a view condemned as modalism. The creed distances itself from this heresy while maintaining unity of substance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Arianam haeresim","severity":"info","text":"Arianism denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, asserting the Son was a creature. The Fides Faustini explicitly positions itself as anti-Arian, yet also guards against Sabellian misinterpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Fides Faustini","severity":"info","text":"The Fides Faustini is attributed to Faustinus, a Luciferian presbyter, and was sent to Emperor Theodosius. It appears in the Appendix to the Works of St. Leo (1675), indicating its later circulation in anti-Arian collections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"pravo ingenio ... impia verba commutant","severity":"caution","text":"Faustinus accuses opponents of maliciously altering the wording of the creed to impute Sabellianism. This rhetorical claim cannot be independently verified and reflects the polemical context of the Luciferian schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'sine initio non ad se factum' is ambiguous: it may mean the Son is not made for the Father's own sake, or not made as an adjunct to the Father. The translation 'not made unto himself' follows the English draft.","The identity of the 'quidam' (certain men) who change the impious words is unspecified; they may be Homoian or Homoiousian opponents."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Nos Patrem credimus, qui non sit Filius, sed habeat Filium de se sine initio genitum, non factum: et Filium credimus, qui non sit Pater, sed habeat Patrem, de quo sit genitus, non factus: et Spiritum sanctum credimus, qui sit vere Spiritus Dei. Unde et divinae Trinitatis unam substantiam confitemur: quia qualis est Pater secundum substantiam, talem genuit et Filium: et Spiritus sanctus non creatura existens, sed Spiritus Dei, non est alienus a substantia Patris et Filii; sed est ejusdem et ipse substantiae cum Patre et Filio, sicut ejusdem Deitatis.\n\nNam qui nos putant esse i Apollinaristas, sciant quod non minus Apollinaris haeresim exsecramur, quam Arianam. Miramur autem illos catholicos probari posse, qui Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti tres substantias confitentur. Sed et si dicunt non se credere Filium Dei, aut Spiritum sanctum creaturam; tamen contra j impiam fidem sentiunt, cum dicant tres esse substantias: consequens est enim, ut tres Deos confiteantur, qui tres substantias confitentur. Quam vocem semper catholici exsecrati sunt.","english":"We believe in the Father, who is not the Son, but has a Son begotten from himself without beginning, not made; and we believe in the Son, who is not the Father, but has a Father, from whom he was begotten, not made; and we believe in the Holy Spirit, who is truly the Spirit of God. Hence we confess one substance of the divine Trinity: because as the Father is in substance, so he begot the Son; and the Holy Spirit, existing not as a creature but as the Spirit of God, is not alien from the substance of the Father and the Son; but he himself is of the same substance with the Father and the Son, as of the same divinity.\n\nFor those who think we are Apollinarists, let them know that we execrate the heresy of Apollinaris no less than the Arian. We marvel, however, that those who confess three substances of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be considered catholics. But even if they say they do not believe the Son of God or the Holy Spirit to be a creature; yet they think contrary to the impious faith, when they say there are three substances: for it follows that those who confess three substances confess three Gods. Which utterance catholics have always execrated.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"tres substantias","severity":"info","text":"The author insists that confessing three substances (tres substantias) necessarily implies tritheism, a charge leveled against those who reject Nicene homoousios.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Apollinaristas","severity":"info","text":"Apollinarism taught that Christ had a human body but a divine mind, denying a full human soul in Christ. The author distances himself from this heresy while opposing tritheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Arianam","severity":"info","text":"Arianism denied the full divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. The author aligns with Nicene orthodoxy by rejecting both Arian subordinationism and Apollinarist christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unam substantiam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase unam substantiam (one substance) renders the Greek homoousios, the Nicene term for the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"tres substantias confitentur","severity":"info","text":"The author’s polemic against three substances echoes the post-Nicene controversy over the term hypostasis, which some Latin writers equated with substantia, leading to charges of tritheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nam qui nos putant...","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from a positive creedal statement to a defensive polemic, refuting accusations of Apollinarism and attacking those who confess three substances.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text uses 'substantia' to translate both Greek 'ousia' and 'hypostasis', a conflation that underlies the author's charge of tritheism against those who speak of three substances."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}