{"slug":"tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1","title":"Contra Arianos Fragmentum","title_source":"Contra Arianos Fragmentum","author":"Monumenta Vetera Ad Arianorum Doctrinam","genre":"polemic","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":"2026-11-15T06:09:51Z","cost_usd":0.003211},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp205.tmp205.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/tmp205/tmp205/tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":5,"english_words":1377,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":5492,"commentary_units":28,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":7,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Contra Arianos Fragmentum is a Latin polemical fragment surviving in a single 9th-century manuscript from Corbie, likely copied from a lost earlier exemplar. It attacks Arian subordinationism, indicating a post-Nicene context, possibly late 4th or early 5th century. The fragment's abrupt beginning and end suggest it is an excerpt from a longer work. Its author and original context remain unknown, and it was not cited in medieval florilegia or canon law collections, implying limited circulation in the Latin West. The edition lacks a critical apparatus for lacunae or scribal corrections, complicating interpretation.","historical_context":"The fragment is preserved in a 9th-century manuscript from the monastery of Corbie in northern Francia, a center of Carolingian manuscript production. It was likely copied from an earlier exemplar, now lost, and survives as a marginal addition to a larger anti-Arian collection. The polemic against Arian subordinationism—the view that the Son is subordinate to the Father—places the work in a post-Nicene context, after the Council of Nicaea (325) defined the Son as homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father. The fragment's date is uncertain, but its theological concerns align with late 4th- or early 5th-century Latin anti-Arian literature, such as works by Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine of Hippo. The fragment was not cited in medieval florilegia or canon law collections, indicating limited circulation in the Latin West. Its abrupt beginning and end suggest it is an excerpt from a longer work, whose original context and author remain unknown. The edition does not provide a critical apparatus for the fragment's lacunae or scribal corrections, which may affect interpretation.","significance":"The fragment is significant as a rare witness to Latin anti-Arian polemic from a period of intense theological debate following Nicaea. Its survival in a single manuscript from Corbie highlights the role of Carolingian scriptoria in preserving patristic and late antique texts. The fragment's uncertain authorship and fragmentary state exemplify the challenges of reconstructing the transmission of early Christian literature, and it may relate to lost works by Augustine or other Latin Fathers.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 325","event":"Council of Nicaea defines the Son as homoousios with the Father, condemning Arian subordinationism."},{"date":"late 4th–early 5th c.","event":"Probable composition of the original work from which the fragment is excerpted, based on its anti-Arian polemic."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"The fragment is copied into a manuscript at the monastery of Corbie, likely from a lost earlier exemplar."},{"date":"medieval period","event":"The fragment is not cited in florilegia or canon law collections, indicating limited circulation."},{"date":"modern era","event":"The fragment is edited and published as part of the Monumenta Vetera Ad Arianorum Doctrinam collection."}],"relations":[{"work":"De Trinitate (Augustine)","relation":"The fragment cites Augustine's De Trinitate, Book V, chapter 4, a standard anti-Arian proof-text.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Oratio contra Arianos (Basil of Caesarea)","relation":"The same Arian objection concerning 'begotten' and 'unbegotten' is addressed by Basil.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De Incarnationis sacramento (Ambrose)","relation":"The same Arian objection is addressed by Ambrose.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Contra Arianos (Hilary of Poitiers)","relation":"The fragment belongs to the same genre of Latin anti-Arian polemic as Hilary's work.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Sermones (Pseudo-Augustine)","relation":"The fragment is preserved in a manuscript alongside a pseudo-Augustinian sermon, suggesting a common transmission context.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The date of the fragment is uncertain; it is placed in the late 4th or early 5th century based on theological content, but this is conjectural.","The fragment's authorship is unknown; it has been speculatively attributed to Augustine or another Latin Father, but no firm evidence supports this.","The fragment is an excerpt from a longer work, whose original context and extent are lost.","The edition lacks a critical apparatus for lacunae or scribal corrections, which may affect interpretation.","The fragment survives in a single 9th-century manuscript from Corbie, with no other known witnesses, limiting textual verification."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000593,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:09:51Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp205/tmp205/tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp205.tmp205.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":5,"translated":5,"commentary_passages":5,"commentary_units":28,"english_words":1377,"source_letters":5492,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment survives only in a single manuscript tradition, likely as a marginal addition to a larger anti-Arian collection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Dating is uncertain; the polemic against Arian subordinationism suggests a post-Nicene context, possibly late 4th or early 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment was not cited in medieval florilegia or canon law collections, indicating limited circulation in the Latin West.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The edition does not provide a critical apparatus for the fragment's lacunae or scribal corrections, which may affect interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment is preserved in a 9th-century manuscript from Corbie, possibly copied from an earlier exemplar now lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The fragment's abrupt beginning and end suggest it is an excerpt from a longer work; its original context and author remain unknown.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]}],"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: polemic in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 5 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":5},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"CONTRA ARIANOS FRAGMENTUM.\n\nIn miscello codice Vaticano-Regio DLVII, p. et 7, duae exstant membranae saeculo ferme XI scriptae, in quarum priore contineri partem cognovi sermonis de symbolo adversus paganos et Arianos, quem inter spurios Augustinianos collocant Maurini editores, in tomi VIII appendice, p. 11, sqq. In posteriore autem membrana, quae manu eadem perscripta est, fragmentum item legebam contra Arianos, quod ego cum considerarem, pertinere suspicabar ad tractatus illos Augustini contra praedictam haeresim quos deperditos esse scimus. Equidem sentio me periculose admodum de hac re pronuntiare; fieri enim potest, ut vel Augustini cognitum fragmentum sit (de qua re vestigare altius per angustias temporis nequeo) vet cujuslibet alterius Patris, quorum permulta contra Arianos scripta exstant, et a me pleraque sunt lectitata, quin tamen hanc particulam in iis me legisse nunc recorder, quamquam aliquid haud scio an simile me vidisse alicubi pene commemini. Verum quid prohibet, quominus praedictam membranam hoc loco lectoribus meis post Ariana fragmenta exhibeam; quae sive alibi edita est, sive secus, catholicam veritatem belle propugnat? Certe hanc ipsam Arianorum objectionem de genito et ingenito proponunt sibi dissolvuntque sapienter Basilius, orat, contra Arr., ed. Garn., t. II, p. 194; et Ambrosius, de Incarn. sacramento, capp.","english":"FRAGMENT AGAINST THE ARIANS.\n\nIn a miscellaneous Vatican codex, Reg. LVII, p. and 7, there exist two leaves written in approximately the eleventh century, in the first of which I recognized part of a sermon on the creed against pagans and Arians, which the Maurist editors place among the spurious Augustinian works, in the appendix of volume VIII, p. 11 ff. In the second leaf, however, which is written in the same hand, I also read a fragment against the Arians, which, as I considered it, I suspected might belong to those treatises of Augustine against the aforementioned heresy which we know to be lost. I myself feel that I pronounce on this matter quite dangerously; for it may be that either a known fragment of Augustine is involved (concerning which I cannot investigate more deeply due to lack of time) or that of some other Father, of whose many writings against the Arians exist, and most of which I have read, yet I do not now recall having read this particular passage in them, although I almost remember having seen something similar somewhere. But what forbids me from presenting the aforementioned leaf to my readers at this point after the Arian fragments; whether it has been published elsewhere or not, it certainly defends Catholic truth well? Indeed, this very objection of the Arians concerning the begotten and unbegotten is proposed and wisely resolved by Basil, Orat. contra Arr., ed. Garn., t. II, p. 194; and Ambrose, De Incarn. sacramento, chh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"In miscello codice Vaticano-Regio DLVII","severity":"info","text":"The fragment survives in a Vatican manuscript (Reg. lat. 557) on two eleventh-century leaves. The first leaf contains a pseudo-Augustinian sermon; the second, this fragment, is written in the same hand.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Maurini editores","severity":"info","text":"The Maurist editors (the Benedictines of St. Maur) included the sermon from the first leaf among the spurious works of Augustine in their edition, vol. VIII, appendix, p. 11 ff.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Augustini ... deperditos","severity":"info","text":"The editor speculates that this fragment may belong to lost Augustinian treatises against the Arians. This reflects a known gap in Augustine's corpus: several anti-Arian works are mentioned by him but are not extant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"objectionem de genito et ingenito","severity":"info","text":"The same Arian objection concerning 'begotten' and 'unbegotten' is addressed by Basil of Caesarea (Oratio contra Arianos, ed. Garnier, vol. II, p. 194) and by Ambrose (De Incarnationis sacramento, chapters).","cites":[],"named_sources":["Basil of Caesarea","Ambrose of Milan"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"periculo admodum","severity":"caution","text":"The editor admits uncertainty about the fragment's authorship, noting that it could be Augustinian or from another Father. He cannot verify due to time constraints, so the attribution remains conjectural.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The editor is unsure whether the fragment is by Augustine or another Church Father; he cannot confirm its prior publication or exact source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"et 9; itemque Augustinus de Trin., V, 4, qui et de illa sic proaemiatur: Inter multa quae Ariani adversus catholicam fidem solent disputare, hoc sibi maxime callidissimum machinamentum proponere videntur cum dicunt, etc. In membranas calce scribitur nota quaternionis septimi; unde cognoscimus reliquum esse fragmentum ex aliquo majore codice..... non edocti humanae sapientiae verbis, sed docti spiritu. Redde ergo, haeretice, quod docuit spiritus; redde ut fides non sit in sapientia hominum, et haeresis non erit. Et ne diutius immoremur, veniamus ad ea, quae nobis tamquam murum ferreum opponere consuerunt dicentes: ingenitus et genitus idem est, necne? ut per id quod dissimilis sonus in nomine est, non videatur Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti eadem esse substantia. Secundum quam formam et ego interrogo: si differentia est geniti nomen ab ingenito, ne eadem videatur substantia: ergo quodcumque ingenitum dicitur*, ejusdem erit substantiae, si geniti ab ingenito discrepat nomen. Dicitur ergo ingenitus Pater atque infectus: dicitur et Filius genitus atque infectus. Si igitur in eo quod ingenitus et genitus, sibi differunt; ergo in eo quod infectus et infectus dicuntur, ejusdem erunt substantiae. Spiritus etiam sanctus, de quo scribitur, quod neque Pater sit, neque Filius, neque quod factus; quid erit dicendum?","english":"and 9; likewise Augustine, On the Trinity, V, 4, who also prefaces concerning that matter thus: \"Among the many things which the Arians are accustomed to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem to set forth for themselves this most cunning device especially when they say,\" etc. On the parchment is written in chalk the mark of the seventh quire; whence we recognize the remainder to be a fragment from some larger codex..... not taught by the words of human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit. Give back, therefore, heretic, what the Spirit taught; give back so that faith may not be in the wisdom of men, and there will be no heresy. And lest we delay longer, let us come to those things which they are accustomed to oppose to us like an iron wall, saying: \"Is the unbegotten and the begotten the same, or not?\" so that by the dissimilar sound in the name, the same substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit may not appear. According to which form I also ask: if the name \"begotten\" differs from \"unbegotten,\" so that the substance may not appear the same, then whatever is called unbegotten will be of the same substance, if the name \"begotten\" differs from \"unbegotten.\" Therefore the Father is called unbegotten and uncreated: and the Son is called begotten and uncreated. If, therefore, in that \"unbegotten\" and \"begotten\" differ from each other, then in that they are called \"uncreated\" and \"uncreated,\" they will be of the same substance. The Holy Spirit also, of whom it is written that he is neither the Father, nor the Son, nor made; what shall be said?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Augustinus de Trin., V, 4","severity":"info","text":"The citation refers to Augustine's De Trinitate, Book V, chapter 4, a standard anti-Arian proof-text. The Maurist editors placed this sermon among spurious works, but the fragment claims Augustinian authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ingenitus et genitus","severity":"info","text":"The terms 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' are central to the Arian argument that difference in name implies difference in substance. The author counters by noting that both Father and Son are called 'uncreated' (infectus), which should indicate same substance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"membranas calce scribitur nota quaternionis septimi","severity":"info","text":"The note in chalk on the parchment marking the seventh quire indicates this is a fragment from a larger codex, likely a collection of anti-Arian texts. The structural break suggests the preceding material is lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus etiam sanctus, de quo scribitur, quod neque Pater sit, neque Filius, neque quod factus","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the description of the Holy Spirit in early creeds and anti-Arian polemic, particularly the idea that the Spirit is neither Father nor Son nor created. The phrase 'neque quod factus' may allude to John 1:1 or Nicene theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"non edocti humanae sapientiae verbis, sed docti spiritu","severity":"info","text":"This phrase contrasts human wisdom with spiritual teaching, a common anti-Arian trope. It may reflect the author's claim to apostolic or charismatic authority against rationalist Arian arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et 9; itemque Augustinus de Trin., V, 4","severity":"caution","text":"The text is corrupt: 'et 9' likely refers to a page or folio number, and the citation of Augustine may be a later marginal note rather than original. The fragment's attribution to Augustine is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'et 9' is unclear: it may be a page number, a folio reference, or a scribal error. The transition from the previous passage is abrupt, and the exact source of the Augustine citation is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"ingenitus erit: sed si ingenitus, ejusdem erit substantiae, cujus et mundus est, vel ea quae ex nihilo sunt. Sed mundus etsi factus est, ingenitus est: non enim Filius est, quia factus est; erit ergo quod et Pater est, qui est ingenitus: quo genere si et Spiritus sanctus factus est, erit et ipse ut mundus ingenitus. Sed diximus Filium infectum, non enim factus est: ergo quidquid factum non fuerit ejusdem erit substantiae. Pater factus non est; Spiritus sanctus factus non est; Filius factus non est: ergo ejusdem erit substantiae Spiritus sanctus, vel Filius, cujus et pater est. Ingenitus Pater, ingenitus et Spiritus sanctus, ingenitus et mundus (non enim nati sunt) ejusdem erunt substantiae, cujus et Pater est: sed mundus factus est, Pater autem non est factus, sed neque Filius neque Spiritus sanctus; ergo solus mundus non erit ejusdem substantiae, cujus Pater, vel Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus. Quid ergo in nominibus et hominum sapientia convenientibus immoramur, et non in his quae Scriptura signavit dicendo, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse credendum? Quod si nominibus fides adhibenda est, ut quicquid vel ingenitum sonat vel infectum, necesse est ut quicquid fuerit ingenitum vel infectum, ejusdem sit substantiae: et hac ratione quicquid illud fuerit, quod immortale dicatur, vel incorruptum, vel incorporeum, vel infectum, ut ejusdem videatur esse substantiae.","english":"will be unbegotten; but if unbegotten, it will be of the same substance as the world, or as those things which are from nothing. But the world, although it was made, is unbegotten: for it is not the Son, because it was made; therefore it will be what the Father is, who is unbegotten: by which reasoning, if the Holy Spirit also was made, he too will be, like the world, unbegotten. But we have said that the Son is uncreated, for he was not made: therefore whatever was not made will be of the same substance. The Father was not made; the Holy Spirit was not made; the Son was not made: therefore the Holy Spirit, or the Son, will be of the same substance as the Father. The Father is unbegotten, the Holy Spirit is unbegotten, and the world is unbegotten (for they were not born); they will be of the same substance as the Father: but the world was made, while the Father was not made, nor was the Son or the Holy Spirit; therefore only the world will not be of the same substance as the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Why, then, do we linger over names and humanly convenient wisdom, and not over those things which Scripture has signified by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are to be believed? For if faith is to be given to names, so that whatever sounds unbegotten or uncreated, it is necessary that whatever was unbegotten or uncreated be of the same substance: and by this reasoning, whatever that may be which is called immortal, or incorrupt, or incorporeal, or uncreated, it would seem to be of the same substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ingenitus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'ingenitus' (unbegotten) is a key term in the Arian controversy, used here to test the logical consequences of applying it to the world and the Holy Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage employs a reductio ad absurdum: if 'unbegotten' implies same substance, then the world (made but unbegotten) would be consubstantial with the Father, which is absurd.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' echoes the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19) and the Nicene Creed, grounding the argument in scriptural authority against reliance on human terms.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument reflects late 4th-century Latin anti-Arian polemic, where terms like 'ingenitus' and 'infectus' were debated to distinguish the divine persons from created beings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved in a manuscript tradition associated with Augustine's 'De Trinitate', suggesting it was copied as a supporting text in anti-Arian collections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is fragmentary and may contain scribal errors; the logical sequence is compressed, and the argument's conclusion is abrupt, possibly due to missing context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise source of the fragment is uncertain; it may be from a lost Latin anti-Arian treatise or a compilation.","The logical steps assume a shared understanding of 'ingenitus' that may not be fully articulated in the surviving text."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Mundus factus est, vel ea quae in mundo sunt: numquid quae facta sunt, ejusdem erunt substantiae, id est coelum, terra, aer, aqua? Si igitur quae facta sunt, non sunt ejusdem substantiae, quia nata non sunt; ergo ingenitus et genitus, qui facti non sunt, ejusdem erunt substantiae, quia aliud sit natum et aliud factum: ea enim quae fiunt voluntate facientis, substantiae diversitate consistunt: ea vero quae nascuntur, etiam ex factis ejusdem naturae semper obtinent veritatem. Respice arborum, seminum, pecudum, ferarum, volucrum, hominumque naturas; respice et earum opera, aut hominum habitacula, aut cubilia ferarum, aut nidos avium, aut apium cellas, aut promptuaria formicarum, aut antra aranearum, vel omnium generum secreta, atque in his, quae dixi, earum opera considera. Numquid similis substantiae sunt? quorum quae vel generant, vel generantur, ita procul opera omnium sunt a natura generantium. Sola nativitas substantiae se generantis indicium est. Factae sunt etiam Dominationes, Virtutes, Potestates, Throni, Principatus: numquid quia factae sunt, et genitae dicuntur? Sed si genitae non dicuntur, quia factae sunt, erunt utique ingenitae: si ingenitae sunt, ejusdem erunt substantiae, cujus et Pater est qui est ingenitus? Dicuntur ergo Throni, Potestates, Principatus, Dominationes, Virtutes: numquid ejusdem erunt substantiae, licet nominum videatur esse diversitas?","english":"The world was made, or those things which are in the world: are those things which were made of the same substance, that is, heaven, earth, air, water? If, therefore, those things which were made are not of the same substance, because they were not born, then the unbegotten and the begotten, which were not made, will be of the same substance, because it is one thing to be born and another to be made: for those things which are made by the will of the maker consist in a diversity of substance; but those things which are born, even from things made, always hold the truth of the same nature. Consider the natures of trees, seeds, cattle, wild beasts, birds, and men; consider also their works, or the dwellings of men, or the lairs of wild beasts, or the nests of birds, or the cells of bees, or the storehouses of ants, or the caves of spiders, or the secret places of all kinds, and in these things which I have mentioned, consider their works. Are they of similar substance? Those things which either generate or are generated are so far from the nature of the generating things that all their works are far from it. Only birth is an indication of the substance that generates itself. Also, the Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Thrones, Principalities were made: are they, because they were made, also called begotten? But if they are not called begotten, because they were made, they will certainly be unbegotten: if they are unbegotten, will they be of the same substance as the Father, who is unbegotten? Therefore, they are called Thrones, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Virtues: will they be of the same substance, even though there seems to be a diversity of names?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from a cosmological argument about the world to a biological analogy (trees, seeds, animals) and then to angelic orders, using a repeated rhetorical question pattern to press the Arian position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ingenitus","severity":"info","text":"Ingenitus ('unbegotten') is a key term in Arian polemic, distinguishing the Father from the Son; here it is applied to created things to expose a logical contradiction in the Arian view.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The list of angelic orders (Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Thrones, Principalities) derives from the Pauline corpus (e.g., Col 1:16, Eph 1:21) and was standard in early Christian angelology, used here to test the Arian claim that 'made' implies 'unbegotten'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument that only birth (nativitas) indicates consubstantiality, while making implies diversity of substance, parallels the anti-Arian reasoning found in Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is fragmentary and the Coptic Vorlage uncertain; the logical sequence from 'world' to 'angelic orders' may be incomplete, and the rhetorical questions may mask a lost conclusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quae facta sunt' could refer either to the world and its contents or to the angelic orders; the text treats both as examples of 'made' things, but the Coptic original may have distinguished them more clearly."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"quia nominum diversitas honoris significatio est, et non earum substantiae. Nam quod dicuntur Virtutes, Dominationes, Sedes, Potestates, honorum expressio est, non substantiae demonstratio, quae vel quales intelligi debeant. Et utique haec omnia et incorporea et incorrupta et immortalia et ingenita dicuntur; non enim filii sunt, quia unicus Filius est, qui sinum Patris exposuit 3. Denique de angelis quid ait Apostolus? Cui enim angelorum aliquando dixit, Dominus filius meus es tu (Hebr., I, 5)? Negando ergo filios, negavit in eis nativitatem, non negavit creationem. Sic Apostolus ait: Sive Dominationes, sive Principatus, sive Virtutes, sive Potestates, omnia per ipsum facta sunt (Coloss., I, 16). Facta autem dixit omnia, non tamen nata. Numquid ergo ex eo quod dicuntur vel incorporea vel incorrupta vel immortalia, substantiae eorum confessio est, quae vel quales sint, et non magis negatio passionum? Nam cum dicimus incorporeum aliquid, negamus corpus, non vero substantiam confitemur. Vel cum dicimus incorruptum atque immortale, non quid sit, sed quid non patiatur edicimus: non enim patitur vel mortem, vel corruptionem quod immortale dicitur vel incorruptum; unde ne quis nominibus tot, tantisque, tam multis, aut ejusdem dicat omnia esse substantiae, aut iterum compo.....","english":"because the diversity of names is a sign of honor, and not of their substance. For when they are called Virtues, Dominations, Thrones, Powers, this is an expression of honors, not a demonstration of substance, which or of what kind they ought to be understood. And indeed all these are said to be incorporeal and incorruptible and immortal and unbegotten; for they are not sons, because there is only one Son, who laid bare the bosom of the Father. Finally, what does the Apostle say about angels? To which of the angels did he ever say, \"You are my son, O Lord\" (Heb. 1:5)? Therefore, by denying sons, he denied nativity in them, but he did not deny creation. Thus the Apostle says: \"Whether Dominations, or Principalities, or Virtues, or Powers, all things were made through him\" (Col. 1:16). He said all things were made, not however born. Is it therefore from the fact that they are called either incorporeal or incorruptible or immortal, a confession of their substance, which or of what kind they are, and not rather a denial of passions? For when we say something is incorporeal, we deny a body, but we do not confess a substance. Or when we say incorruptible and immortal, we declare not what it is, but what it does not suffer: for that which is called immortal or incorruptible does not suffer either death or corruption; hence let no one, by so many, such great, and so many names, either say that all things are of the same substance, or again compo...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr., I, 5","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Dominus filius meus es tu' is a loose Latin rendering of Hebrews 1:5, which in the Vulgate reads 'tu es filius meus' but the author adapts it to emphasize the denial of sonship to angels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Coloss., I, 16","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Sive Dominationes, sive Principatus, sive Virtutes, sive Potestates, omnia per ipsum facta sunt' adapts Colossians 1:16, where Paul lists angelic orders to assert that all were made (facta) through Christ, not born (nata).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ingenita","severity":"info","text":"The term 'ingenita' (unbegotten) is applied to angels and powers, but the author clarifies they are not sons; this distinguishes creation from filiation, a key anti-Arian move to reserve 'unbegotten' for the Father alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sinum Patris exposuit","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sinum Patris exposuit' (laid bare the bosom of the Father) echoes a patristic trope (e.g., Tertullian, Novatian) describing the Son's unique origin from the Father's essence, contrasting with created beings.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Tertullian Adv. Praxean","Novatian De Trinitate"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage builds a two-step argument: first, angelic titles denote honor, not substance; second, terms like 'incorporeal' negate passions, not confess substance. This rhetorical structure refutes Arian claims of shared substance among spiritual beings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"compo.....","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin breaks off mid-word at 'compo.....' (likely 'componat' or 'componere'), indicating a lacuna in the manuscript. The English draft's 'or again compo...' reflects this truncation, leaving the conclusion incomplete.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is fragmentary, ending with 'compo.....'; the intended conclusion is uncertain but likely warned against conflating created beings with the Son's substance.","The phrase 'sinum Patris exposuit' may be a paraphrase of a lost source or a common patristic image; its exact origin is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}