{"slug":"tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1","title":"De Trinitate Et Unitate Dei [Incertus]","title_source":"De Trinitate Et Unitate Dei [Incertus]","author":"Augustinus","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":"2026-11-15T06:41:51Z","cost_usd":0.008733},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp733.tmp733.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/tmp733/tmp733/tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":16,"english_words":4354,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":16400,"commentary_units":94,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":1,"ambiguities":30,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1","abstract":"This treatise argues for both the Trinity and the unity of God, using scriptural citations to defend against Arian and Sabellian positions. Its register is doctrinal and polemical, typical of late fourth- or early fifth-century Latin anti-heretical writing. The work is transmitted among Augustine's spuria; its ascription to Augustine is not supported by early manuscript evidence or by ancient lists of his works. It appears first in medieval collections of pseudo-Augustinian tracts. The present edition reproduces a single printed source without collation of manuscripts, so the critical status of the text is unknown. The work's brevity and lack of distinctive Augustinian style raise doubts about authenticity.","historical_context":"The treatise is undated and of unknown provenance, but its theological vocabulary (substantia, persona) and anti-Arian and anti-Sabellian polemic place it within the late fourth- to early fifth-century Latin Trinitarian debates. It survives only in medieval manuscripts that attribute it to Augustine, but no early witness or ancient list of Augustine's works includes it. The work first appears in pseudo-Augustinian collections, and medieval authors such as Peter Lombard cited it as Augustine's, contributing to its long inclusion in the Augustinian corpus. The text's brevity and lack of distinctive Augustinian style (e.g., no vestigium Trinitatis or psychological analogy) suggest it is a later composition by an unknown author. The present edition (ogl-pl) reproduces a single printed source without collation of manuscripts, so the critical status of the text is unknown.","significance":"The treatise illustrates the medieval reception of Augustine as an authority on Trinitarian doctrine, even for works not genuinely his. It shows how later authors used scriptural exegesis to combat Arian and Sabellian views, and its citation by Peter Lombard helped shape scholastic Trinitarian theology. The work also highlights the challenges of authenticating patristic texts.","timeline":[{"date":"late 4th–early 5th c.","event":"Probable composition period based on theological vocabulary and polemical context."},{"date":"12th c.","event":"Cited by Peter Lombard in Sententiae I, d. 19, as 'Augustinus in libro de Trinitate et unitate Dei'."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Transmitted in pseudo-Augustinian collections; no earlier manuscript evidence."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Doubts raised about Augustinian authorship; work classified among spuria."}],"relations":[{"work":"Augustine, De Trinitate","relation":"Falsely attributed to Augustine; lacks his characteristic style and arguments.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Peter Lombard, Sententiae","relation":"Cited as Augustine's work, influencing medieval Trinitarian theology.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Arian and Sabellian heresies","relation":"Polemical target; the work defends Nicene orthodoxy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The work is undated; its composition cannot be fixed more precisely than late 4th–early 5th century based on theological vocabulary.","Authorship is disputed; the attribution to Augustine is not supported by early evidence and is likely spurious.","The present edition (ogl-pl) reproduces a single printed source without collation of manuscripts; the critical status of the text is unknown."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000433,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:41:51Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp733/tmp733/tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp733.tmp733.opp-lat1","status":"warn","blocking":[],"warnings":[{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"4","kind":"scripture"}],"stats":{"passages":16,"translated":16,"commentary_passages":16,"commentary_units":94,"english_words":4354,"source_letters":16327,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise argues for both the Trinity and the unity of God, using scriptural citations to defend against Arian and Sabellian positions. Its register is doctrinal and polemical, typical of late fourth- or early fifth-century Latin anti-heretical writing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The work is transmitted among Augustine's spuria; its ascription to Augustine is not supported by early manuscript evidence or by ancient lists of his works. It appears first in medieval collections of pseudo-Augustinian tracts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"No internal reference to datable events or persons. The theological vocabulary (e.g., 'substantia', 'persona') is consistent with late fourth-century Latin Trinitarian debate, but this alone cannot fix a date or author.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The present edition (ogl-pl) reproduces a single printed source without collation of manuscripts. It does not record variant readings or the work's transmission history, so the critical status of the text is unknown.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Cited by medieval authors (e.g., Peter Lombard, Sententiae I, d. 19) as 'Augustinus in libro de Trinitate et unitate Dei', contributing to its long inclusion in the Augustinian corpus despite modern doubts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The work's brevity and lack of distinctive Augustinian style (e.g., no use of 'vestigium Trinitatis' or psychological analogy) raise doubts about authenticity. Readers should not assume it reflects Augustine's mature Trinitarian theology.","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: 16 narrative."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":16},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"DE TRINITATE ET UNITATE DEI Liber unus.\n\nCAPUT PRIMUM. — Personam geniti Filii principium Geneseos evidenter ostendit: ait enim, In principio fecit Deus cælum et terram (Gen. I, 1). Quem alium principium intelligendum putamus, nisi Filium? Ipse enim de se interrogantibus Judæis quis esset, respondit, Principium qui et loquor vobis (Joan.VIII, 25). Ergo principium Filius. Per Filium fecit Deus cælum et terram, sicut Joannes evangelista narrat: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso faclum eat nihil Id. 1, 3). Filius Dei natura est Filius, non adoptione, sicut scriptum cst: Ante luciferum genui te (Psal. CIX, 3) Dius Pater uterum non habet sicut nos, aut corporeus esse credendus est; sed per uterum substantiam intelligi voluit, de qua natus est Filius. Quod est Pater, hoc genuit: Deus Deum, lux lucem; sicut homo hominem gignit, et canis canem. Nunquam visum est ut homo gignerct canem. Ac per hoc Pater nun de nihilo, neque de aliqua alia substantia, sed de se ipso genuit Filium.","english":"On the Trinity and the Unity of God, One Book.\n\nChapter One. — The person of the begotten Son is clearly shown by the beginning of Genesis: for it says, \"In the beginning God made heaven and earth\" (Gen. 1:1). What other beginning are we to understand but the Son? For He Himself, when asked by the Jews who He was, replied, \"The beginning, who also speaks to you\" (John 8:25). Therefore the beginning is the Son. Through the Son God made heaven and earth, as the evangelist John relates: \"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made\" (John 1:3). The Son of God is Son by nature, not by adoption, as it is written: \"Before the morning star I begot you\" (Ps. 109:3). God the Father does not have a womb as we do, nor is He to be believed to be corporeal; but by \"womb\" He wished to signify the substance from which the Son was born. What the Father is, that He begot: God from God, light from light; just as a man begets a man, and a dog begets a dog. It has never been seen that a man begets a dog. And therefore the Father begot the Son not from nothing, nor from any other substance, but from Himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"De Trinitate Et Unitate Dei Liber unus","severity":"info","text":"The title and chapter heading mark this as a self-contained treatise, though the work is traditionally attributed to Augustine with uncertainty.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In principio fecit Deus cælum et terram","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Genesis 1:1, interpreting 'principium' (beginning) as a reference to the Son, a common patristic exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Principium qui et loquor vobis","severity":"info","text":"John 8:25 is quoted, where Jesus identifies himself as 'the beginning,' supporting the author's identification of the Son with the principium of creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso faclum eat nihil","severity":"info","text":"John 1:3 is cited, though the Latin text has a variant 'faclum' for 'factum,' likely a scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ante luciferum genui te","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 109:3 (LXX 108:3) is quoted, interpreted as a divine begetting before creation, supporting the Son's eternal generation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uterum","severity":"info","text":"The author uses 'uterum' (womb) metaphorically for divine substance, clarifying that God is not corporeal, a key anti-anthropomorphic point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has a possible scribal error: 'faclum' for 'factum' in the John 1:3 citation.","The attribution to Augustine is uncertain; the work is listed as [Incertus] in the source edition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Spiritum sanctum, neque ing' nitum, neque genitum fides recta declarat: quia si dixerimus ingenitum, duos patres affirmare videbimur; si autem genitum, duos filios credere culpamur. Sed quod cci ta fides tenet, nec ingenitus est, nec genitus, sed ab utroque procedens, id est, a Patre et a Filio. Et ut hoc testimoniis approbemus, ipsum Dominum nostrum Jcsum Chritum ad discipulos audi dicentem: Cum venerit, inquit, Paracletus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me ( Id. xv, 26). Et rursum ipse Dominus Jesus Christus post resurrectionem suam, ut ostenderet a se proccdere Spiritum sanctum, sicut et a Patre; insufnans in discipulos suos, ait: Accipite Spiritum sanctum (Joan. xx. 22). Unus est ergo Spiritus Patris ct Filii, unus amborum Spiritus. Igitur quod Patris sit Spiritus, ipse Dominuset Salvator noster discipulis suis ait: Non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur in vobis (Matth. X, 20). Et quod idein et Filii sit Spiritus, Paulus apostulus teotis est: Si quis autem, inquit, Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ejus (Rom. Tin, 9).","english":"Right faith declares that the Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten: because if we say unbegotten, we will seem to affirm two fathers; but if begotten, we are blamed for believing in two sons. But what Catholic faith holds is that he is neither unbegotten nor begotten, but proceeding from both, that is, from the Father and the Son. And to confirm this with testimonies, hear our Lord Jesus Christ himself speaking to his disciples: \"When the Paraclete comes,\" he says, \"whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me\" (John 15:26). And again, our Lord Jesus Christ himself after his resurrection, to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him as well as from the Father, breathing on his disciples, says: \"Receive the Holy Spirit\" (John 20:22). Therefore the Spirit of the Father and the Son is one, one Spirit of both. So that the Spirit belongs to the Father, our Lord and Savior himself says to his disciples: \"For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father, who speaks in you\" (Matthew 10:20). And that the same Spirit also belongs to the Son, the apostle Paul is witness: \"But if anyone,\" he says, \"does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his\" (Romans 8:9).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritum sanctum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text uses 'Spiritum sanctum' (Holy Spirit) as the subject of the Trinitarian formula. The author's denial that the Spirit is 'ingenitus' (unbegotten) or 'genitus' (begotten) reflects late 4th- to 5th-century debates on the Spirit's origin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 15:26","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Cum venerit... Paracletus... a Patre procedit' (John 15:26) is given to show the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Vulgate text differs slightly; the author adapts the wording to stress procession from both Father and Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 20:22","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Accipite Spiritum sanctum' (John 20:22) is used to argue that the Son also sends the Spirit. This verse is not a direct quotation of the Vulgate but a compressed reference to the Johannine account of the risen Christ breathing on the disciples.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matthew 10:20","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Spiritus Patris vestri' (Matthew 10:20) is attributed to Jesus speaking of the Spirit as belonging to the Father. The verse is loosely recalled; the Vulgate reads 'Spiritus Patris vestri' in a different context, but the author applies it to Trinitarian doctrine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Romans 8:9","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Spiritum Christi non habet' (Romans 8:9) is attributed to Paul to show the Spirit is also of the Son. The Vulgate reads 'Si quis autem Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius' — the author adapts the verse to support the Spirit's dual origin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument that the Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten but proceeds from both Father and Son reflects post-Nicene Trinitarian theology, particularly the anti-Macedonian stance that the Spirit is a distinct person co-equal with Father and Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has minor scribal errors (e.g., 'ing' nitum' for 'ingenitum', 'ccita' for 'catholica', 'Jcsum Chritum' for 'Jesum Christum', 'proccdere' for 'procedere', 'insufnans' for 'insufflans', 'apostulus' for 'apostolus', 'teotis' for 'testis', 'Tin' for 'viii'). These do not affect the doctrinal sense but indicate a corrupt transmission.","The citation of John 15:26 is conflated with John 14:16-17; the author's wording 'Cum venerit... Paracletus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre' is not a direct Vulgate verse but a paraphrase."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"CAPUT II. — Procul dubio in nomine Dei, Pater; in nomine principii, Filius intelligendus est. Profecto cum dixisset, In principio fecit Deus cælum et terram; et subsecutus adjunxit, Et Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas (Gen. I, 1, 2): qui est tertia in Trinitate persona. Igitur si non esset trina persona, nunquam Dominus noster Jesus Christas diceret discipulis suis, Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti (Matth. XXVIII, 19). Nee baptizato Domino a Joanne in Jordane fieret vox de coelo, dicens: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui (Id. III, 47). Nec Spiritus sanctus in specie columbæ descendisse super eum, et mansisse diceretur. Ideo tres personas secundum Scripturas sanctas intelligimus, id est, alium esse Patrem, alium Filium, qui genitus est a Patre, alium Spiritum sanctum: non aliud, quia substantia unum suut. Per. sonas distinguimus, non deitatem separamus. Quod autem Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus de una substantia sit, beatus Paulus apostolus de Filio ad Romanos scribens demonstrat: Quorum patres, inquit, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui esi super omnia Deus benedictus in sæcula (Rom. IX, 5). Et iterum in Evangelio secundum Joannem, Ut cognoscant te solum verum unum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. XVII, 5): id est, te, et quem misisti Jesum Christum, verum unum Deum.","english":"CHAPTER II. — Without doubt, in the name of God, the Father is understood; in the name of the beginning, the Son is understood. Indeed, when it was said, \"In the beginning God made heaven and earth,\" and he subsequently added, \"And the Spirit of God was borne over the waters\" (Gen. 1:1-2), this is the third person in the Trinity. Therefore, if there were not a threefold person, our Lord Jesus Christ would never have said to his disciples, \"Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit\" (Matt. 28:19). Nor, when the Lord was baptized by John in the Jordan, would a voice from heaven have said, \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased\" (Matt. 3:17). Nor would the Holy Spirit be said to have descended upon him in the form of a dove and remained. Therefore, we understand three persons according to the holy Scriptures, that is, that the Father is one, the Son, who was begotten by the Father, is another, and the Holy Spirit is another: not another thing, because they are one in substance. We distinguish persons, we do not separate the divinity. But that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, the blessed apostle Paul demonstrates, writing to the Romans about the Son: \"Whose fathers,\" he says, \"and from whom Christ according to the flesh, who is above all God blessed forever\" (Rom. 9:5). And again in the Gospel according to John: \"That they may know you alone, the one true God, and whom you sent, Jesus Christ\" (John 17:5): that is, you, and whom you sent, Jesus Christ, the one true God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT II","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new structural division, though the treatise's chapter divisions are likely editorial rather than original.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"principii","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'principii' (beginning) is linked to the Son, echoing John 1:1 and aligning with a common patristic identification of the Son with the Logos as principle.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. I, 1, 2","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Genesis 1:1-2 is used to argue for the Spirit as the third person, a standard proof-text in Trinitarian theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XXVIII, 19","severity":"info","text":"Matthew 28:19 (the baptismal formula) is cited as a dominical command implying three persons, a key text in Trinitarian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. III, 47","severity":"caution","text":"The reference 'Matt. 3:17' is erroneous; the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism appears in the Synoptics (e.g., Matt 3:17 is not a verse). The text likely conflates Matthew 3:16-17 with a non-canonical or misremembered source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"beatus Paulus apostolus","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Romans 9:5 is garbled ('Quorum patres...') and does not correspond to any known Pauline text, suggesting a corrupt transmission or a loose paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture reference 'Matth. III, 47' is corrupt; the intended verse is unclear.","The citation of Romans 9:5 is garbled and does not match the Vulgate text.","The phrase 'et quem misisti Jesum Christum' in John 17:5 is not found in standard manuscripts; it may be a paraphrase or interpolation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Et rursus Scriptura dicit, Ut simus in vero Filio ejus Jesu Christo, ipse est verus Deus et vita æterna (I Joan. v. 20). Et ut æqualitatem suam ostenderet, ait ipse Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 30): scilicet natura, non persona. Et iterum inquit, Propterea quærebant Judæi interficere Jesum, quia non solum solvibat sabbatum, aed et Patrem suum dicebat Deum, æqualem se faciens Deo (Id. v, 18). Et rursus Paulus inquit, Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus eat esse se æqualem Deo (Philipp. II, 6). Non poterat esse rapina, ubi aequalis erat natura; non erat usurpata, sed nata; non rapuit, quia vere liabuit. Spiritum vero sanctum Deum, Acta Apostolorum apertissime docent: Anania, inquit Petrus, cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum, mentiri te Spiritui sancto? Et infra, Non hominibus mentitus es, sed Deo (Act. v, 5. 4). Et in Evangelio inquit secundum Joannem: Dominus spiritus eat (Joan. IV, 24). Paulus ad Corinthios scribens, ait: Nescitis quia corpora vestra templum sunt Spiritus sancti, qui in vobis est, quem habetia a Deo, et non estis vestri? Idem Paulus, Empti enim estis pretio magno, glorificate et portate Deum in corpore vestro (I Cor. VI, 19, 20). Pater, inquam, Dtius, Filius Dcus, Spiritus sanctus Dcus: non tres dii, sed unus est Deus, ut Moyses dicit: Audi, Israel; Dominus Deus tuus, unus est Deus (Deut. vi, 4).","english":"And again Scripture says, \"That we may be in the true Son of Him, Jesus Christ, He Himself is true God and eternal life\" (1 John 5:20). And to show His equality, the Lord Himself says, \"I and the Father are one\" (John 10:30): namely, in nature, not in person. And again He says, \"Therefore the Jews sought to kill Jesus, because not only did He break the Sabbath, but also He called His Father God, making Himself equal to God\" (John 5:18). And again Paul says, \"Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God\" (Philippians 2:6). It could not be a usurpation where the nature was equal; it was not usurped, but born; He did not seize it, because He truly possessed it. That the Holy Spirit is God, the Acts of the Apostles most openly teach: \"Ananias,\" says Peter, \"why did Satan tempt your heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit?\" And below, \"You have not lied to men, but to God\" (Acts 5:3-4). And in the Gospel according to John it says: \"The Lord is Spirit\" (John 4:24). Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: \"Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?\" The same Paul says, \"For you have been bought at a great price, glorify and carry God in your body\" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). The Father, I say, is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God: not three gods, but one God, as Moses says: \"Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one God\" (Deuteronomy 6:4).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Joan. v. 20","severity":"info","text":"The citation '1 John 5:20' is given in the Latin as 'I Joan. v. 20', but the English draft renders it as 1 John 5:20. The verse is not a direct quotation but a paraphrase of 1 John 5:20.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. x, 30","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'John 10:30' is given in the Latin as 'Joan. x, 30'. The phrase 'Ego et Pater unum sumus' is a direct quotation from John 10:30.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Id. v, 18","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'John 5:18' is given in the Latin as 'Id. v, 18'. The reference is to John 5:18, but the wording is a paraphrase of the verse.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philipp. II, 6","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Philippians 2:6' is given in the Latin as 'Philipp. II, 6'. The verse is not a direct quotation but a paraphrase of Philippians 2:6.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Act. v, 5. 4","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Acts 5:3-4' is given in the Latin as 'Act. v, 5. 4'. The reference is to Acts 5:3-4, but the wording is a paraphrase of the verses.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. IV, 24","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'John 4:24' is given in the Latin as 'Joan. IV, 24'. The phrase 'Dominus spiritus est' is a paraphrase of John 4:24.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains several scriptural citations that are paraphrased rather than directly quoted, which may affect the precision of the references."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Ac per hoc sicut dicimus, non tres deos, non tres cssentbs; ita nee tres sapientias, nee tres spiritus. Nam interrogati de singulis personis, si sit Pater sapientia, vel Filius. vcl Spiritus sanctus: respondemus, Pater est sapientia, Filius est sapientia, Spiritus sanctus est sapientia: uon tres sapientiæ, nec tres spiritus; sed una sapientia, et unus spiritus; sicut una substantia, et una essentia: quia hocilli Patri cst esse, quod Filiosapientiæet Spiritui sancto est esse. Et cum æquales sint Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, Filius tamen dicit, Pater major me eat (Joan. xiv, 28); et, Non veni voluntatem meam facere, sed voluntatem ejns qui me misit (ld. vi, 38, 40); et, Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste (Matth. xxvi, 39); et, Mea doctrina non est mea, aed ejus qui me misit (Joan. VII, 46). Ista omnia, ei alia quæ dicit Filius, secundum formam servi quam assumpsit, intelligenda et dicta sunt. Igitur cum primus homo conditus esset a Deo, et libero arbitrio muneraretur, præceptumque ci positum esset, ut si cuatodisset quæ ei Deus præceperat, non morte corporis, nee animae moreretur: sed ille inobediens mandato Dei, atque elatus superbia, suasioni serpentis obediens, mandata contempsit. Et hæc causa exstitit ut mortis periculum incurreret; et ab illo uno homine omnis huumana natura vitiata, atque peccato obnoxia, mortalis existeret.","english":"And so, just as we say not three gods, not three essences, so also not three wisdoms, not three spirits. For when asked about individual persons, whether the Father is wisdom, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, we answer: the Father is wisdom, the Son is wisdom, the Holy Spirit is wisdom: not three wisdoms, nor three spirits; but one wisdom and one spirit; just as one substance and one essence: because for the Father to be is the same as for the Son of wisdom and the Holy Spirit to be. And although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal, the Son nevertheless says, \"The Father is greater than I\" (John 14:28); and, \"I have not come to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me\" (John 6:38, 40); and, \"Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me\" (Matthew 26:39); and, \"My teaching is not mine, but of him who sent me\" (John 7:46). All these things, and others that the Son says, are to be understood and spoken according to the form of a servant which he assumed. Therefore, when the first man was created by God and endowed with free will, and a command was placed upon him, that if he kept what God had commanded him, he would not die the death of the body nor of the soul: but he, disobedient to God's command and puffed up with pride, obeying the persuasion of the serpent, despised the commands. And this was the reason that he incurred the danger of death; and from that one man, the whole human nature was corrupted, and being subject to sin, became mortal.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"essentia","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'essentia' (essence) is used here as a synonym for 'substantia' (substance), a key term in Trinitarian theology to denote the single divine nature shared by the three persons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater major me est (John 14:28)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Pater major me est' (John 14:28) is used to illustrate the Son's subordination in the economy of salvation, which the author explains as referring to Christ's human nature (forma servi).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non veni voluntatem meam facere (John 6:38, 40)","severity":"info","text":"The composite citation from John 6:38 and 6:40 emphasizes Christ's obedience to the Father's will, consistent with the anti-Arian argument that the Son's words reflect his assumed humanity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste (Matthew 26:39)","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Matthew 26:39 (the agony in Gethsemane) is interpreted as spoken according to Christ's 'forma servi', a common patristic strategy to harmonize Gospel passages that suggest human weakness with Trinitarian equality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"forma servi","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'forma servi' (form of a servant) refers to Christ's human nature, a concept developed by Augustine and others to explain passages where Christ appears subordinate to the Father, preserving the full divinity of the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Igitur cum primus homo conditus esset","severity":"info","text":"The passage transitions from Trinitarian doctrine to the fall of Adam, linking the Incarnation and Christ's humility to the human condition of sin and mortality, a common Augustinian narrative arc.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'cssentbs' in the source text is a typographical error for 'essentias' (essences), corrected in the translation.","The composite citation of John 6:38, 40 may reflect a conflation of two separate verses; the exact source is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Unde apostolus Paulus inquit, Per unum hominem peccatum introivit in mundum, et per peccatum Mors: et ira in omnes homines mors pertransivit, in quo omnes homines peccaverunt. Quia sicut per unum hominem omnes homines in condemnationem ceciderunt, ita et per unius justitiam omnes homines in justitiam vitæ surrexerunt (Rom. v, 12, 18); et iterum, Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de cælo coelestis (1 Cor. xv, 47). Coelestem itaque dico, quia non ex humano conceptus semine, sed de Maria virgine, pro nostra salute, assumptus a Filio Dei, sicut Joannes testatur: Et verbum caro factum est, ct habitavit in nobis ( Id. I, 14). Verbum caro factum est, non in carnem mutatum, ut desisteret esse quod crat, sed cœpit esse quod non erat: sumpsit enim carnem, non convertit in carnem. Carnem istam a parte tutum hominem intelligimus, id est, carnem ct animant rationalem: ut primus bomo et carne et anima mortuus fucrat; ila eliam oportuit ut per Mediatorem Dei et hominum hominem Christum Jesum, ct carne et anima vivificaretur. Ergo, ut supra diximus, secundum assumptionis formam carnis dictum est, Pater major me eat (Joan. xiv, 28). Non est credendum posse Filium Dei et Filium hominis duos lilios esse; quia non sunt duo filii, sed unus. Nam ille qui erat Filius Dei, factus est lilius hominis in unitate personae. Ut anima et caro uirus est homo, ita Vei bum ct homo unus est Christus.","english":"Hence the Apostle Paul says: Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death; and death passed through to all men, in whom all men sinned. For just as through one man all men fell into condemnation, so also through the justice of one man all men rose into the justice of life (Rom. 5:12, 18); and again: The first man from the earth is earthly, the second man from heaven is heavenly (1 Cor. 15:47). I call him heavenly, therefore, because he was not conceived from human seed, but from the Virgin Mary, for our salvation, assumed by the Son of God, as John testifies: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). The Word was made flesh, not changed into flesh, so that it ceased to be what it was, but it began to be what it was not: for it took on flesh, not turned into flesh. We understand this flesh as the whole man, that is, flesh and rational soul: so that just as the first man died in both flesh and soul, so also it was necessary that through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, both flesh and soul be given life. Therefore, as we said above, according to the form of the assumption of flesh it was said: The Father is greater than I (John 14:28). It is not to be believed that the Son of God and the Son of Man could be two sons; because they are not two sons, but one. For he who was the Son of God became the Son of Man in the unity of person. Just as soul and flesh are one man, so the Word and the man are one Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Per unum hominem peccatum introivit in mundum","severity":"info","text":"The citation conflates Rom. 5:12 and 5:18, a common patristic conflation of the Adam-Christ typology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de cælo coelestis","severity":"info","text":"This paraphrase of 1 Cor. 15:47 adapts Paul’s contrast between the earthly and heavenly man to the Christ-Adam parallel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"assumptionis formam carnis","severity":"info","text":"‘Assumptionis formam carnis’ refers to the mode of the Incarnation: the Son assumed human nature without ceasing to be divine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Mediatorem Dei et hominum","severity":"info","text":"The title ‘Mediator of God and men’ is a standard Christological formula (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5) emphasizing Christ’s dual role.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ut anima et caro unus est homo, ita Verbum et homo unus est Christus","severity":"info","text":"This analogy of soul-body unity to Christ’s two natures is a classic anti-Nestorian argument, echoing Cyril of Alexandria.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"a parte tutum hominem","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase ‘a parte tutum hominem’ is obscure; likely a scribal corruption for ‘a parte totum hominem’ (the whole man).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'a parte tutum hominem' is unclear; emended to 'a parte totum hominem' for sense.","The conflation of Rom. 5:12 and 5:18 may reflect a variant textual tradition or loose citation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Duas substantias accipimus in uno Filio Dei; unam deitatis, aliam humanitatis, non duas personas. Et si dixerimus duas personas, introducemus etiam duos filios Dei: et jau. tunc non erii Trinitas, sed quaternitas; quod absit. Profecto enim per id quod estDeus, ct æqualis Patri, et ubique præsens est, ct in cælo est tutus, et in terra lotus, et in nullo continetur loco: per id quod homo, et passus et nortuus, ct resurrexit et ascendit in cælum, sedetque ad dexteram Patris, et sic veniet ad judicandum vivus et mortuos, quemadmodum est ire visus in caelum, in cadem forma carnis atque substantia; cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Licet una substantia sit, neque persona Patris, neque Spiritus sancii, sed sola Filii suscepit carnem. Et ut hoc intelligamus, comparationibus utar. Certe (ut ex creatura intelligas Creatorem) sic in anima est ratio, et cum sint unum, aliud anima agit, aliud ratio; anima vivimus, ratione sapimus: ita Pater ct Filius et Spiritus sanctus cum sint una substantia, tota Trinitas operata est hominem, quem non tota Trinitas assumpsit, sed sola Filii persona. Nec voluntate, nec necessitate genuit Pater Filium. Nun necessitate, quia necessitas in Deo non est: non volunlale, quia voluntas præire sapientiam non potest, quæ est Filius. Igitur prius est rationabiliter sapere, quam rationabiliter velle.","english":"We accept two substances in the one Son of God: one of divinity, the other of humanity, not two persons. And if we were to say two persons, we would also introduce two sons of God; and then there would not be a Trinity, but a Quaternity—which God forbid. For indeed, by that which He is God, He is equal to the Father, and is present everywhere, and is whole in heaven, and whole on earth, and is contained in no place; by that which He is man, He suffered and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead, just as He was seen to ascend into heaven, in the same form of flesh and substance; to which indeed He gave immortality, but did not remove its nature. Although there is one substance, neither the person of the Father nor that of the Holy Spirit, but only that of the Son, assumed flesh. And to understand this, I will use comparisons. Certainly (so that you may understand the Creator from the creature), just as in the soul there is reason, and although they are one, the soul does one thing, reason another; we live by the soul, we are wise by reason: so the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, although they are one substance, the whole Trinity wrought the man, whom not the whole Trinity assumed, but only the person of the Son. The Father begot the Son neither by will nor by necessity. Not by necessity, because necessity is not in God; not by will, because will cannot precede wisdom, which is the Son. Therefore, it is more reasonable to be wise than to will reasonably.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"duas substantias","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'two substances' (duas substantias) refers to the divine and human natures in Christ, a key point in Christological debates. The author insists on one person (persona) to avoid implying two sons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"quaternitas","severity":"info","text":"'Quaternity' (quaternitas) is a neologism here, coined to warn that positing two persons in Christ would add a fourth entity to the Trinity, breaking its unity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sedetque ad dexteram Patris","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sits at the right hand of the Father' echoes the Nicene Creed and biblical language (e.g., Mark 16:19, Acts 7:55-56), affirming Christ's ascended and glorified state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"comparatio animae et rationis","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of soul and reason as one substance with distinct functions is a common patristic trope (cf. Augustine, De Trinitate) to illustrate the Trinity's unity and distinction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Igitur prius est rationabiliter sapere, quam rationabiliter velle","severity":"info","text":"This concluding sentence presents a logical priority: wisdom (sapientia, identified with the Son) precedes will (voluntas) in God, rejecting both necessity and mere volition as causes of the Son's generation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"jau. tunc non erii Trinitas","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains a probable scribal error: 'jau. tunc' is likely a corruption of 'iam tunc' (then already) or 'et iam tunc'. The sense is clear: positing two persons would yield a quaternity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'jau. tunc' in the Latin is unclear; it is read as a corruption of 'iam tunc' or 'et iam tunc'.","The author's identity is uncertain; the work is attributed to Augustine but is likely by an anonymous Latin theologian."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Unde nec voluntate nrc necessitate, sed naturaliter sola sapientia Pater gennit Filium. Sicut Pater vitam habel in semetipso, sic dedit Filio habere vitam in semetipso (Joan. v, 26). Scimus Filium Dei a semetipso nnn esse, sed a Patre genitum esse: Patrem vero a nullo genitum esse, a nullo vitam accepisse. Dedit Pater Filio vitam, gignendo vitam quam Pater habuit iN se. Non quod prius fuerit Filius sine vita, et postea acceperit vilam; sicut nos qui per peccatum amisimus vitan, et per gratiam Salvatoris recepimus vitam. Ideo de eo dicilur, Filius a Patre accepit vitam, quia non a se ipso est genitus: non existenti dedit, sed gignendo.\n\nCAPUT III.- Quoniam et oratione et testimoniis persuasimus de subjectione Filii, quia non secundum substantiam minor, sed secundum formam servi quam assumpsit sed ut missus esse dicatur, aliquid dicere volumus. Scimus sicut Filius non secundum substantiam dicitur missus, seu minor: ita nec Spiritus sanctus propter columbam vel ignem Iussus dicitur: sril cct quin non in ea substantia, qua æqualis csi Patri, apparuit; sed, ut dictum est, per subjectam creaturam. Nun enim sicut Filius bominem assumpsit, ut in æternum permaneat, sic Spiritus sanctus columbam vel ignem: sed illae factæ visiones de creatura inferiore ad manifestandum Spiritum, esse postea destiterunt.","english":"Hence neither by will nor by necessity, but naturally by wisdom alone did the Father beget the Son. Just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26). We know that the Son of God is not from himself, but was begotten by the Father; the Father, however, was begotten by no one, received life from no one. The Father gave life to the Son by begetting the life which the Father had in himself. Not that the Son was first without life and afterwards received life, as we who through sin lost life and through the grace of the Savior received life. Therefore it is said of him that the Son received life from the Father, because he was not begotten from himself: he did not give to a non-existent being, but by begetting.\n\nCHAPTER III.—Since we have persuaded by both speech and testimonies concerning the subjection of the Son, that he is not lesser according to substance, but according to the form of a servant which he assumed, but so that he may be said to be sent, we wish to say something. We know that just as the Son is not said to be sent or lesser according to substance, so neither is the Holy Spirit said to be sent on account of the dove or fire: that is, not in that substance in which he is equal to the Father did he appear; but, as has been said, through a subject creature. For just as the Son assumed a man, to remain forever, so the Holy Spirit did not assume a dove or fire: but those visions were made from a lower creature to manifest the Spirit, and afterwards ceased to exist.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"naturaliter","severity":"info","text":"The adverb 'naturaliter' (naturally) is crucial: it asserts that the Father's begetting of the Son is not a voluntary act or a necessity, but an intrinsic property of the divine nature, aligning with Nicene pro-Nicene theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. v, 26","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. v, 26' (John 5:26) is used to support the claim that the Father gave the Son life in himself. The verse in context speaks of the Father having life in himself and giving it to the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"columbam vel ignem","severity":"info","text":"The dove and fire refer to biblical theophanies of the Holy Spirit: the dove at Jesus' baptism (Matt 3:16, Luke 3:22) and fire at Pentecost (Acts 2:3). The author argues these were temporary manifestations, not an incarnation like the Son's.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT III","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new argument: having established the Son's subordination is not substantial, the author now addresses the Son's being 'sent' and the Holy Spirit's visible manifestations, extending the same logic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"subjecta creatura","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'per subjectam creaturam' (through a subject creature) echoes a common patristic explanation for theophanies, later used by Augustine and others to distinguish the Son's incarnation from temporary divine appearances.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nrc","severity":"caution","text":"The abbreviation 'nrc' in the Latin is unclear; it may be a scribal error for 'nec' (nor) or 'nisi' (unless). The translation follows the likely reading 'nec' as 'nor'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The abbreviation 'nrc' is ambiguous; taken as 'nec' (nor).","The phrase 'sril cct quin' in the Latin is corrupt; the translation follows the emended reading 'scilicet quia' (that is, because)."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Nunquam enim illa incomprehensibilis immutabilisque divinitas, quæ est Trinitas Deus. ab oculis carnalibus videri potest, nisi, ut dictum est, per subjectam creaturam. Inter genitum Filium et processionem Spiritus sancti hoc distat, quod Filius Dci sic est de Patre, quomodo natus, non quomodo datus: Spiritus vero sanctus sic est de Patre et Filio, non quomodo natus, sed quomodo datus. Filius natus solius est Patris, non Spiritus sancti. Amborum est Spiritus, id est, Patris ct Filii: quia si Spiritus Filius diceretur, amborum Filius diceretur. Nullus autem filius est duorum nisi patris ct matris: quod absit ut inter Deum Patrem et Filium quis suspicetur, quia nec filius bominis simul et ex patre ct matre procedit: sed cum procedit ex patre, non tunc procedit ex matre; ei cum procedit ex matre in hanc lucem, nou tunc procedit et ex patre. Spiritus vero sanctus non de Patre procedit in Filium, et de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit. De eo quod a Joanne dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus non loquitur a semetipso; sed quæcumque audiet, loquetur (id. XVI, 13); non loquitur a semetipso, quia non est a se ipso: Pater enim a nullo est natus, Filius a Patre est gcnitus, Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedens: ideo non loquitur a se ipso; sed quæcumque audiet, loquetur.","english":"For that incomprehensible and immutable divinity, which is the Trinity God, can never be seen by carnal eyes except, as has been said, through a subject creature. Between the begotten Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit there is this difference: that the Son of God is from the Father as born, not as given; but the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son not as born, but as given. The Son, born, is of the Father alone, not of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is of both, that is, of the Father and the Son: because if the Spirit were called Son, he would be called the Son of both. But no son is of two unless of father and mother—which it is unthinkable that anyone should suspect between God the Father and the Son, because not even a human son proceeds simultaneously from both father and mother: for when he proceeds from the father, he does not then proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this light, he does not then proceed also from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds from both simultaneously. Concerning what is said by John, that the Holy Spirit does not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak (John 16:13): he does not speak from himself, because he is not from himself. For the Father is born from no one, the Son is begotten from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son: therefore he does not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"processionem","severity":"info","text":"Processionem (procession) is a technical term for the Holy Spirit’s origin, distinct from the Son’s generation. The author contrasts natus (born) with datus (given) to articulate this difference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 16:13","severity":"info","text":"The citation of John 16:13 (Spirit not speaking from himself) is used to argue that the Spirit’s lack of self-origin implies he does not speak from himself, but only what he hears.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Filioque","severity":"info","text":"The passage reflects the Latin Filioque controversy: the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son (ex Patre Filioque), a point contested in Eastern theology. The author insists on simultaneous procession from both.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"natus vs. datus","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured around a binary contrast: the Son is natus (born) from the Father alone; the Spirit is datus (given) from both Father and Son. This frames the Trinitarian distinctions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunquam","severity":"caution","text":"The opening sentence (Nunquam enim illa incomprehensibilis…) may be a later insertion or gloss, as it shifts abruptly from the previous passage’s focus on generation to a general statement about divine visibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'per subjectam creaturam' is ambiguous: it could mean 'through a subordinate creature' (as a medium) or 'through a subject creature' (as an object of perception). The translation adopts the former.","The citation of John 16:13 is not exact; the verse number may be a later addition or misattribution."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Audire illi esse est, a se non est, sed a Patre: ideo quæcumque audiet, loquetur. Quid sit quod Spiritus sanctus pro uobis interpellare dicitur, quod dicit Paulus ad Romanos scribens: Nam quid oremus sicut oportet, nescimus; sed ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus. Qui autem scrutatur corda, scit quid desideret Spiritus, quia secundum Deum postulat pro sanctis (Rom. VIII, 26). Modus iste Iaculi. nis, qui frequcnler in Scripturis sanctis invenitur, est sicut Deus dicit ad Abraham, Nunc cognovi, quoniam timeas Deum, ( Gen. XXII. 12), hoc est, cognoscere te feci: sicut dicit Apostolus, Nunc cognoscentes Deum, imo cogniti a Deo ( Galat. IV, 9). Nempe omnia in præsentia Dei sunt a tequainGant; præsentia sunt futura, quasi jam facta sint: quomodo dicit, cogniti a Deo, nisi faciente Deo ut cognoscamus Deum; sic et hic scribitur Spiritus sanctus gemere pro nubis, id cst, gementes nos facere, infundendo nobis charitatem in Deum et proximum: sicut legitur, Lætus dies, quia lætos homines faciat. Pater solus nusquam legitur missus, sed missionem Filii ita scribit Apostolus: Cum autem venerit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum natum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant, redimeret (Ibid. 4,5). Quod Filius Dci natus de Maria virgine, venit in mundum, testatur evangelista, dicens, In mundo erat et mundus per ipsum factus eat ( Joan. I, 10).","english":"To hear is for him to exist; he does not exist from himself, but from the Father: therefore whatever he hears, he will speak. What it is that the Holy Spirit is said to intercede for you, which Paul writes to the Romans: \"For we do not know what we ought to pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself pleads for us with inexpressible groans.\" But he who searches hearts knows what the Spirit desires, because he pleads for the saints according to God (Rom. 8:26). This manner of speaking, which is frequently found in the Holy Scriptures, is like God says to Abraham, \"Now I know that you fear God\" (Gen. 22:12), that is, I have made you know; as the Apostle says, \"Now knowing God, rather known by God\" (Gal. 4:9). Indeed, all things are in the presence of God; future things are present, as if they were already done: how does it say, \"known by God,\" except by God making us know God; thus also here it is written that the Holy Spirit groans for us, that is, makes us groan, by infusing into us charity for God and neighbor: as it is read, \"A joyful day,\" because it makes men joyful. The Father alone is nowhere read as having been sent, but the Apostle writes of the mission of the Son thus: \"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, made subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law\" (Ibid. 4:5). That the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, came into the world, the Evangelist testifies, saying, \"He was in the world, and the world was made through him\" (John 1:10).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Audire illi esse est","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Audire illi esse est' (to hear is for him to exist) is a compressed theological formula describing the Son's dependence on the Father for his being, echoing the Son's passive role as listener and speaker.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. VIII, 26","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Romans 8:26 is adapted: the Vulgate reads 'Spiritus ... postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus' (the Spirit pleads for us with inexpressible groans), but the author adds 'ipse' and 'secundum Deum' to emphasize the Spirit's agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. XXII, 12","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Genesis 22:12 ('Nunc cognovi, quoniam timeas Deum') is a loose paraphrase; the Vulgate reads 'Nunc cognovi quod timeas Deum' (Now I know that you fear God). The author interprets it as a causative: 'I have made you know.'","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Galat. IV, 9","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Galatians 4:9 ('Nunc cognoscentes Deum, imo cogniti a Deo') is a conflation: the Vulgate reads 'cognoscentes Deum' (knowing God) but not 'cogniti a Deo' (known by God). The author adds the latter to illustrate divine initiative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus sanctus gemere pro nobis","severity":"info","text":"The author interprets the Holy Spirit's groaning as a causative action: the Spirit makes believers groan by infusing charity. This reflects a common patristic exegetical technique of reading divine actions as effects in humans.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Modus iste Iaculi. nis","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'Modus iste Iaculi. nis' is corrupt; likely intended as 'Modus iste loquendi' (this manner of speaking). The text may have suffered scribal error or abbreviation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Modus iste Iaculi. nis' is unclear; emended to 'loquendi' based on context.","The citation of Galatians 4:9 includes 'cogniti a Deo' not found in the Vulgate; possibly a paraphrase or memory error."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Et ipse ait, Ego a Patre exivi, et veni in hunc mundum (Id. xvi, 28). Item Evangelista dicit, Et mundus eum non cognovit. Deinde subjungit, In sua propria venit (ld. I, 10, 11). Illuc utique missus cst, quo venil: sed in hunc mundum est missus, ubi erat; quae missio tamon essc opus sancta: Trinitatis, nulli sit catholico dubitandnm. Nusquam scriptum est, quod Deus Pater major sii Spiritu sancto, vel Spiritus sanctus minor Deo Patre, quia non ita cst. Quia persona divinitatis suæ assumpta est a Filio Dei ex virgine Mana, in personam suæ humanitatis, unitatem habitumque conjunxit in æternum. Quamvis Spiritus sanctus apparuisset in specie columba; vel ignis, non possumus tamen dicere Spiritum sanctum Deum ei columbam, aut Deum et ignem, sicut dicimus Filium Dqum et hominem. Propter has igitur corporales formas, in quibus apparuit Spiritus sanctus,missus dicitur: non propter has minor Patre dici potest; sicut Filius propter formam servi, quæ inhæsit illi ad unitatem personae per. petualiter. Illæ vero species corporales, ut est columbæ vel ignis, ad demonstrandum quod opus fuit, ad tempus apparuerunt, et esse postea destiterunt. Nonne apparcre debuerunt creatura sicut oportuit, servientes Creatori ad nutum rjus; qui incommutabiliter in se ipso permanet, ad eum significandum et demonstrandum, sicut significari et demonstrari mortalibus oportebat, mutatæ atque conversae?","english":"And he himself says, \"I came forth from the Father, and entered into this world\" (John 16:28). Likewise the Evangelist says, \"And the world did not know him.\" Then he adds, \"He came into his own\" (John 1:10-11). He was certainly sent to that place to which he came: but he was sent into this world, where he already was; yet that this mission is the work of the holy Trinity is not to be doubted by any Catholic. Nowhere is it written that God the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because it is not so. For the person of his divinity was assumed by the Son of God from the Virgin Mary into the person of his humanity, and he joined unity and habit forever. Although the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove or of fire, we cannot, however, say that the Holy Spirit is God and a dove, or God and fire, as we say the Son is God and man. On account of these bodily forms, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit appeared, he is said to be sent: not on account of these can he be said to be less than the Father; just as the Son, on account of the form of a servant, which inhered in him to the unity of his person perpetually. But those bodily forms, such as that of a dove or fire, appeared for the time being to demonstrate what was necessary, and afterwards ceased to exist. Should they not have appeared to a creature as was fitting, serving the Creator at his nod, who remains unchangeably in himself, for the purpose of signifying and demonstrating him as it was necessary for mortals to be signified and demonstrated, changed and transformed?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego a Patre exivi, et veni in hunc mundum","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I came forth from the Father, and entered into this world' is attributed to John 16:28, though the Vulgate reads 'exivi a Patre'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Et mundus eum non cognovit. Deinde subjungit, In sua propria venit","severity":"info","text":"The reference to John 1:10-11 is imprecise: John 1:10 says 'the world did not know him', but 'he came into his own' is not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"missio","severity":"info","text":"The term 'missio' (sending) is used to describe the Holy Spirit's appearance in bodily forms, distinguishing it from the Son's incarnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"columba; vel ignis","severity":"info","text":"The dove and fire are traditional biblical symbols for the Holy Spirit (e.g., at Jesus' baptism and Pentecost), here used to argue against subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage contrasts the Son's permanent assumption of human form with the Holy Spirit's temporary appearances, reinforcing the argument for co-equality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Nusquam scriptum est","severity":"caution","text":"The claim that Scripture nowhere states the Father is greater than the Spirit is rhetorically emphatic but not a precise citation; it reflects anti-subordinationist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural references are loosely paraphrased; 'In sua propria venit' is not a direct biblical quote.","The phrase 'personam suæ humanitatis' may reflect later Trinitarian terminology not original to Augustine."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"CAPUT IV.- A quibubdam dubitari solet, an Spiritum sanctum habuerunt Apostoli illo tempore, quo fuerunt cum Christo Domino, secundum quod Evangelista dicit, Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Jesus nondum erat glorificatus ( Id. VII, 59). Et in alio loco ait, Si diligitis me, præcepta mna servate: et ego rogabo Palrem, et alium Paracletum dabit vobis, ut vobiscum sit in æternum, Spiritum veritatis: quem mundus non potest accipere; quia non videt eum, neque cognoscit eum. Vos autem videtis eum, et cognoscitis eum; quia apud vos manet, et vobiscum est ( Id. XIV, 15-17). Et etiam post resurrectionem suam legitur insufflasse et dixisse discipulis, Accipite Spiritum sanctum ( Id. xx, ). In Pentecoste vero legitur Spiritus sanctus in Apostolos descendisse ( Act. II, 4). Ad hæc dicendum, quia unus Spiritus est, sed dona habet multa. Non est dubium, quin Spiritus sanctus erat cum eis: quia ubi Christus est, Spiritus sanctus est. Et quia venturum Spiritum sanctum a Patre promiserat Christus, non defuit in hoc indifferens ejus divinitas. Trium officiorum formæ doni Spiritus sancti in Apostolis sunt ostensæ: quarum prima ea, quæ ad jus ecclesiasticum pertinet, in regenerandis. Ecclesiastica potestas intelligitur esse in ofliciis episcoporum et sacerdotum, qui omnia in traditione dominica pur Spiritum sanctum agere debent.","english":"CHAPTER IV.—It is sometimes doubted by some whether the Apostles had the Holy Spirit at the time when they were with Christ the Lord, according to what the Evangelist says, that the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39). And in another place he says, \"If you love me, keep my commandments; and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, nor know him. But you see him, and know him; because he remains with you, and is with you\" (John 14:15-17). And also after his resurrection it is read that he breathed on the disciples and said, \"Receive the Holy Spirit\" (John 20:22). At Pentecost, however, it is read that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:4). To these things it must be said that the Spirit is one, but has many gifts. There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit was with them: because where Christ is, the Holy Spirit is. And because Christ had promised that the Holy Spirit would come from the Father, his indifferent divinity was not lacking in this. Three forms of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Apostles are shown: the first of which is that which pertains to ecclesiastical law, in regenerating. Ecclesiastical power is understood to be in the offices of bishops and priests, who ought to do everything in the dominical tradition through the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 7:39","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites John 7:39, but the verse numbering follows the Vulgate; modern Bibles often place this saying at John 7:39, though some manuscripts vary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 14:15-17","severity":"info","text":"The citation of John 14:15-17 is approximate; the Latin text loosely paraphrases Jesus’ promise of the Paraclete, which in standard editions appears in John 14:16-17.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 20:22","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Jesus breathing on the disciples and saying 'Receive the Holy Spirit' corresponds to John 20:22, though the Latin text does not give a chapter-verse citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Acts 2:4","severity":"info","text":"The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is cited as Acts 2:4; the Vulgate numbers Acts 2:1-4 as the Pentecost narrative, but modern editions may differ slightly.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"indifferens","severity":"info","text":"The term 'indifferens' (indifferent) here means 'not different' or 'identical,' referring to the undivided divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, not to moral indifference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Trium officiorum formae","severity":"info","text":"The 'three forms of the gift of the Holy Spirit' likely alludes to a tripartite schema of ecclesiastical gifts (e.g., regeneration, teaching, governance), though the text only develops the first.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text's citation of John 7:39 is ambiguous because the verse numbering in the Vulgate may not align with modern critical editions; the phrase 'Spiritus nondum erat datus' is a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation.","The reference to 'John 14:15-17' is approximate; the Latin text does not provide exact verse boundaries, and the paraphrase may conflate multiple verses.","The phrase 'insufflasse et dixisse discipulis, Accipite Spiritum sanctum' is a conflation of John 20:22, but the Latin does not specify the chapter and verse, leaving the exact source ambiguous."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Unde illis dicit Jesus, Quorum tenueritis peccata, tenebuntur; et quorum remiseritis, remittentur eis (Joan. xx, 23). Secunda est, quæ in Pentecoste data est, quæ generalis est: non solum enim in Apostolos, verunt etiam in omnes credentes decidit Spiritus sanctus. Tertia forma est, quæ solum Apostolis vel ordinatis in initio concessa est, in signis ac virtutibus faciendis, usquedum fidei semina jacercut ad crementum. Semina enim fidei sunt virtutes per Apostolos factæ: ipsi enin Apostoli antistites positi sunt hujusmodi veritatis, qui per signa et prodigia rationabilem esse fidem nostram testantur. Igitur Spiritus sanctus datur omnibus generaliter credentibus, sed si manet in eis: in signis vero et prodigiis filii Dei esse probantur. Etiam Spiritus sanctus non manet quandoque in bomine, sed vocatus advenit, ut suggerat necessaria, et rccedat. Similitcr et in traditione vel ordinatione, deforis gratiam et tuitionem præstat devotis fidei, ut commendatiorcs habeantur per inspirationem ejus.","english":"Whence Jesus says to them, \"Whose sins you have bound, they shall be bound; and whose you have loosed, they shall be loosed\" (John 20:23). The second is that which was given at Pentecost, which is general: for the Holy Spirit descended not only upon the Apostles, but also upon all believers. The third form is that which was granted only to the Apostles or to those ordained at the beginning, in the performance of signs and miracles, until the seeds of faith should be cast for increase. For the seeds of faith are the miracles wrought by the Apostles: the Apostles themselves have been set as overseers of this kind of truth, who by signs and wonders testify that our faith is reasonable. Therefore the Holy Spirit is given to all believers in general, but if He remains in them: in signs and wonders, however, they are proven to be sons of God. Moreover, the Holy Spirit does not always remain in a man, but when called, He comes to suggest what is necessary, and departs. Similarly, in tradition or ordination, He bestows grace and protection from without upon the devout in faith, so that they may be held in greater esteem through His inspiration.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Quorum tenueritis peccata, tenebuntur; et quorum remiseritis, remittentur eis (Joan. xx, 23)","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites John 20:23, but the Vulgate reads 'Accipite Spiritum Sanctum... quorum peccata remiseritis, remittentur' (John 20:22-23). The wording here is a paraphrase, possibly reflecting a variant tradition or a loose quotation from memory.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Secunda est, quæ in Pentecoste data est","severity":"info","text":"The author distinguishes three forms of the Holy Spirit's giving: the first (implied from the previous passage) to the Apostles before Pentecost, the second at Pentecost to all believers, and the third to Apostles and early ordinands for miracles. This tripartite scheme is not standard in patristic sources and may reflect a later medieval elaboration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"antistites","severity":"info","text":"'Antistites' (overseers) is a rare term for bishops or leaders, used here to describe the Apostles as guarantors of truth through miracles. It echoes early ecclesiological language (cf. Cyprian, Ep. 55).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"usquedum fidei semina jacercut ad crementum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'jacercut' is corrupt; the intended verb is likely 'jacerentur' (were sown). The phrase 'fidei semina' (seeds of faith) is a metaphor for the initial spread of Christianity through miracles, but the textual corruption obscures the precise syntax.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus sanctus non manet quandoque in bomine","severity":"info","text":"The statement that the Holy Spirit does not always remain in a man but comes and goes when called reflects a charismatic or occasional view of the Spirit's presence, which was debated in later medieval theology (e.g., in controversies over grace and the Spirit's permanence in the baptized).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tertia forma est","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as a threefold division of the Spirit's giving (first, second, third form), each with distinct recipients and purposes. This triadic pattern is a rhetorical device common in late antique and medieval treatises.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'first' form of the Spirit's giving is not stated in this passage but is implied from the previous passage (John 7:39). The textual corruption 'jacercut' leaves the exact meaning of the seed metaphor uncertain. The phrase 'si manet in eis' (if He remains in them) is ambiguous: it may mean the Spirit remains only in those who are faithful, or it may be a conditional clause with "],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"CAPUT V.— Pater, Filius, et Spiritus sanctus unus est verus Ocus, secundum illud quod scriptum est. Audi, Israel; Dominus Deus tuus unus est (Deut. VI, 4). Et in Evangelio scriptum est, Ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum ( Joan. XVII, 3). Et de Christo dicitur a Joanne apostolo ł Ipse est verus DeMat, et vita æterna ( I Joan, v, ). Ante omnia tempora Filius erat, ut intelligendum in hoc est, In principio erat Verbum: et, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Quia et tempus sine aliquibus creaturaa motibus non potest esse. Et idco per Filium facta confitemur et tempora, pcr quae facia sunt omnia: ideo procul dubio aqualis genitus, et coaeternus est Patri Filius. Dicitur Filius Dei ex voluntate et praecepto Patris, coelestia, terrestria, visibilia et invisibilia, corpora et spiritus ex nullis exstantibus, id est, ex nihilo ut essent, sua virtute fecisse: ] cum ipse ex nullis exstantibus, hoc est, ex nihilo non factus sit, sed ex Deo Patre Deus: quæ res indicat unam et camdem Patris Filiique naturam. Filius per se ipsum non potuit, tanquam nun esset ante quam fieret, ut esset ipse per quem fieret idem ipse. Porro si per aliquem alium a Patre factus est Filius; quis est ipse alius, cum omnia per ipsum facta sunt, hoc est, per Verbum ejus? Antequam faceret universa, omnium futurorum Deus ct Dominus, rex eI.","english":"CHAPTER V.—The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one true God, according to what is written: \"Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one\" (Deut. 6:4). And in the Gospel it is written, \"That they may know you alone as the true God, and whom you sent, Jesus Christ\" (John 17:3). And concerning Christ it is said by the apostle John: \"He is the true God, and eternal life\" (1 John 5:20). Before all times the Son existed, as is to be understood in this: \"In the beginning was the Word,\" and, \"All things were made through him.\" For time cannot exist without some motions of creatures. And therefore we confess that times, through which all things were made, were made through the Son; hence without doubt the Son is equally born and coeternal with the Father. It is said that the Son of God, by the will and command of the Father, made the heavens, the earth, the visible and invisible, bodies and spirits, from nothing existing, that is, from nothing, so that they might be, by his own power; whereas he himself was not made from nothing existing, that is, from nothing, but is God from God the Father: which thing indicates one and the same nature of the Father and the Son. The Son could not, by himself, as if he did not exist before he was made, be himself the one through whom the same himself was made. Moreover, if the Son was made by someone other than the Father, who is that other, since all things were made through him, that is, through his Word? Before he made all things, he was God and Lord of all future things, king and.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deut. VI, 4","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Deut. VI, 4' corresponds to the Shema Yisrael (Deuteronomy 6:4), a foundational monotheistic confession used by Latin authors to assert divine unity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. XVII, 3","severity":"info","text":"The reference 'Joan. XVII, 3' is likely John 17:3, though the wording 'ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum' does not match the Vulgate; it may be a loose citation or from a variant Latin tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Joan, v, 20","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Joan, v, 20' (1 John 5:20) is given as 'Ipse est verus Deus, et vita æterna', but the Vulgate reads 'scimus quoniam verus Deus est' (1 John 5:20); the exact wording may reflect a different Latin version or scribal adaptation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ocus","severity":"info","text":"The form 'Ocus' is a variant spelling of 'Deus' (God), likely a scribal error or abbreviation; the text consistently uses 'Deus' elsewhere, so this does not affect the theological meaning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ex nihilo","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ex nihilo' (from nothing) reflects the late fourth-century consensus on creatio ex nihilo, a key doctrine in anti-Arian and anti-Manichaean polemic, here applied to creation by the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"rex eI","severity":"caution","text":"The text breaks off with 'rex eI', likely a truncated phrase (e.g., 'rex et ...'); the manuscript may be incomplete or the copyist left the passage unfinished.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'Joan. XVII, 3' does not match the Vulgate text of John 17:3; the intended verse may be John 17:3 or a conflation with other Johannine passages.","The phrase 'rex eI' at the end is fragmentary; the intended completion is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"creator erat constitutus, et omnium futurorum in natura habens præscientiam, et in faciendo in omnibus exspectans Patris jussionem. Ipse volunuue Patris descendit de cælo, et venit in mundum, sicut ipso ait: Non enim u me ipso veni, sed ille me misit. ] Una quippe ipsa Trinitas est, quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia. Dicimus jubente Patre Filium creasse omnia, non esse nisi Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia. Quod autem Pater miserit Filium, qui cum ipso venit, ipse testatur qni ait, Non sum solus, quoniam Pater mecum eat. Nunquam ideo diversa natura est, quia Pater mittit, et mittitur Filius. Potest homo pater mittere hominem filium, non unius ejusdemque substantiæ, cum bomo missus ab homine mittente separetur: quod non potest Deus. Sed ignis mittit splendorem suum, nec potest splendor separari ab igne mittente. Cum enim splendorem mittit ignis, longius perveuit inde splendor, quo ignis nou pervenit. Unde splendor ab igne qui est in lucerna missus1 utique vere possit dici in pariete, quo sine lucernæ igne pervenit ignis. Super hoc Filius dicit, Qui me autem missus a atre Hilius dicere, Pater mecum est. Sententiam turpiter de ormat exscriptor; nec aliquid deiuceps adjungit praeter excer la ex eodem Augustini libro contra ermonem Arianorum, male compacta et inde trancatis aut interpolatis sententiis inepta lectuque indigna. misil, mecum est (Joan.","english":"creator was established, and having in his nature foreknowledge of all future things, and in acting, in all things awaiting the Father's command. He himself, by the Father's will, descended from heaven and came into the world, as he himself says: \"For I did not come of myself, but he sent me.\" Indeed, that same Trinity is one, since from him, and through him, and in him are all things. We say that by the Father's command the Son created all things, that he is nothing other than the Word through which all things were made. But that the Father sent the Son, who came with him, he himself testifies who says, \"I am not alone, because the Father is with me.\" Therefore, the nature is never different because the Father sends and the Son is sent. A human father can send a human son, not of one and the same substance, since a man sent by a sending man is separated; which God cannot do. But fire sends its radiance, nor can the radiance be separated from the sending fire. For when fire sends its radiance, the radiance reaches farther from there, where the fire does not reach. Hence the radiance sent from the fire which is in a lamp can truly be said to be on the wall, where without the lamp's fire the fire reaches. Concerning this, the Son says, \"Who, however, sent by the Father,\" the Son says, \"The Father is with me.\" The scribe shamefully disfigures the sentence; nor does he add anything further except excerpts from the same book of Augustine against the Sermon of the Arians, poorly assembled and with truncated or interpolated sentences, unworthy of reading.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Una quippe ipsa Trinitas est","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt; the scribe has disfigured the sentence, and the passage is assembled from excerpts of Augustine's Contra Sermonem Arianorum, poorly compiled and truncated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non enim u me ipso veni, sed ille me misit","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 8:42, where Jesus says, 'I did not come of myself, but he sent me.' The Latin is garbled but the reference is clear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non sum solus, quoniam Pater mecum eat","severity":"info","text":"This appears to be a distorted citation of John 8:16 or a similar verse where Jesus affirms the Father's presence; the exact source is uncertain due to textual corruption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed ignis mittit splendorem suum","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of fire and its radiance is a traditional patristic illustration of the inseparable unity of the Father and Son, used by Augustine and others to counter Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ex eodem Augustini libro contra ermonem Arianorum","severity":"info","text":"The text explicitly references Augustine's 'Contra Sermonem Arianorum' (Against the Sermon of the Arians), indicating the compiler drew from that work, though the excerpts are poorly assembled.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sententiam turpiter de ormat exscriptor","severity":"caution","text":"The editor notes that the scribe has shamefully disfigured the sentence, and the remainder of the passage is a compilation of truncated or interpolated excerpts, making the structure unreliable.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is heavily corrupt, with garbled citations and interpolated excerpts from Augustine's 'Contra Sermonem Arianorum'. The exact wording of scriptural quotations is uncertain, and the logical flow is disrupted by scribal errors."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"VIII, 42, 16, 29): quod vere potuit Filius dicere. Pater mecum est. Cum igitur hæc a Patre missio Filii prorsus ineffabilis sit, nec capi ullius cogitatione possit, hoc etiam hic potest intelligi, ut a Patre missus esse dicatur, quod Filius hominibus apparuit in carne, non Pater. Quo enim mittitur Filius, ubi non est? Ubi autem non est sapientia Dci? etc.\n\nADMONITIO IN SUBSEQUENTEM LIBRUM.\n\nNon uni Augustino, sed aliis multis auctoribus æque falso tributus fuit, Ambrosio, Hicronymo, Anselmo, Bonaventuræ. Quanquam apud Hieronymum non totus exstat, sed tantum usque ad verba, Hæc omnia quæ prædicta sunt, etc., col. 1208, cap.; apudque ipsum inscribitur, De his qua Deo in Scripturis attribuuntur. Apud Anselmum, De vestimentis et membris el actibus Deo tributis. Apud Bonaventuram, De essentia et invisibilitate et immensitate Dei. In Mss. Vaticano et Victorino sub Augustini nomine titulum habet, De essentia divinitatis ei de invisibilitate atque incommutabilitate Dei. Prima et maxima pars libri ex Eucherii Lugdunensis opere de Formulis spiritualis intelligentiæ sumpta, continet totum caput ejusdem operis primum, quod est de Divinis nominibus.","english":"which the Son could truly say: \"The Father is with me.\" Therefore, since this sending of the Son by the Father is utterly ineffable and cannot be grasped by any thought, it can also be understood here that the Son is said to be sent by the Father because the Son appeared to men in the flesh, not the Father. For where is the Son sent, where he is not? And where is the Wisdom of God not present? etc.\n\nADMONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING BOOK.\n\nThis work was falsely attributed not only to Augustine, but also to many other authors equally falsely: Ambrose, Jerome, Anselm, Bonaventure. However, in Jerome it does not exist in its entirety, but only as far as the words, \"All these things which were foretold,\" etc., column 1208, chapter; and in him it is entitled, \"Concerning Those Things Which Are Attributed to God in the Scriptures.\" In Anselm, \"Concerning the Garments and Members and Acts Attributed to God.\" In Bonaventure, \"Concerning the Essence and Invisibility and Immensity of God.\" In the Vatican and Victorine manuscripts under Augustine's name it has the title, \"Concerning the Essence of the Divinity and Concerning the Invisibility and Incommutability of God.\" The first and greatest part of the book is taken from the work of Eucherius of Lyons, \"On Spiritual Understanding,\" and contains the whole first chapter of that same work, which is \"Concerning the Divine Names.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Admonitio in subsequentem librum","severity":"info","text":"This editorial note, found in the printed edition, documents the work's false attribution to Augustine and others, and identifies its source in Eucherius of Lyons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eucherii Lugdunensis opere de Formulis spiritualis intelligentiæ","severity":"info","text":"The first and largest part of this treatise is taken from Eucherius of Lyons' 'Formulae spiritualis intelligentiae', specifically its first chapter 'De divinis nominibus'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater mecum est","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Pater mecum est' echoes John 10:38, where Jesus says 'Pater mecum est' in the Vulgate, though the passage does not cite the verse explicitly.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quod vere potuit Filius dicere. Pater mecum est","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt: the period after 'dicere' breaks the syntax; the sense requires 'quod vere potuit Filius dicere: Pater mecum est'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Non uni Augustino, sed aliis multis auctoribus æque falso tributus fuit","severity":"info","text":"The work was falsely attributed to Ambrose, Jerome, Anselm, and Bonaventure; in Jerome it survives only partially, under a different title.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text at 'quod vere potuit Filius dicere. Pater mecum est' is ambiguous due to a misplaced period; the intended reading is a direct statement by the Son."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}