{"slug":"tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1","title":"Epistolae","title_source":"Epistolae","author":"Capreolus Carthaginensis","genre":"letter","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":"2026-11-15T07:08:50Z","cost_usd":0.013872},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp882.tmp882.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/tmp882/tmp882/tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":28,"english_words":7066,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":27756,"commentary_units":162,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":2,"ambiguities":41,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1","abstract":"The letter of Capreolus, bishop of Carthage (c. 430–437), addresses the Council of Ephesus (431) and explains why Augustine of Hippo could not attend due to his death in 430 and the Vandal blockade of North Africa. Written in Latin, it survives only in a single manuscript tradition, preserved through later collections like the Collectio Avellana and medieval canon law. The letter reflects the disruption of church governance by the Vandal invasion and the theological stakes of the Ephesian council, but it never achieved wide circulation.","historical_context":"Capreolus succeeded Augustine as bishop of Carthage around 430, during the Vandal conquest of Roman Africa under Geiseric. The Vandals invaded in 429, captured Hippo Regius in 430, and besieged Carthage, disrupting sea and land routes. The letter is dated to the mid-430s, shortly after the Council of Ephesus (431), which condemned Nestorianism. Capreolus writes to explain that Augustine's death and the Vandal blockade prevented African representation at the council. The text survives only in a single manuscript tradition, preserved in the sixth-century Collectio Avellana and later canon law collections, with no early medieval copies. Its Latin text is based on a single printed source (ogl-pl) whose manuscript base is not fully verified.","significance":"The letter is a rare contemporary witness to the impact of the Vandal invasion on North African Christianity and the African church's engagement with the Christological controversies of the early fifth century. It also provides evidence for the authority of Augustine's legacy and the practical obstacles to conciliar participation in late antiquity.","timeline":[{"date":"429","event":"Vandals under Geiseric invade Roman Africa."},{"date":"430","event":"Augustine dies during the Vandal siege of Hippo Regius."},{"date":"c. 430–437","event":"Capreolus serves as bishop of Carthage."},{"date":"431","event":"Council of Ephesus convenes; Capreolus writes to explain African absence."},{"date":"6th c.","event":"Letter preserved in the Collectio Avellana."},{"date":"Medieval","event":"Letter cited in canon law collections."}],"relations":[{"work":"Collectio Avellana","relation":"preserves the letter","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Augustine of Hippo","relation":"subject of the letter; his death prevented attendance at Ephesus","key":"wikipedia:Augustine of Hippo","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Ephesus","relation":"the council discussed in the letter","key":"wikipedia:Council of Ephesus","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Vandal conquest of North Africa","relation":"historical context for the letter's obstacles","key":"wikipedia:Vandal conquest of Roman Africa","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Theodosius II","relation":"emperor who convoked the council; addressed in the letter","key":"wikipedia:Theodosius II","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The letter's date is uncertain; it is usually placed in the mid-430s but not precisely datable.","The Latin text is based on a single printed source (ogl-pl) whose manuscript base is not fully verified.","The letter survives only in a single manuscript tradition, with no early medieval copies known.","Variant readings from other witnesses are not recorded."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000461,"generated":"2026-11-15T07:08:50Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp882/tmp882/tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp882.tmp882.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":28,"translated":28,"commentary_passages":28,"commentary_units":162,"english_words":7066,"source_letters":27615,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter survives only in a single manuscript tradition, with no early medieval copies known. Its preservation depends on later collections of African conciliar and epistolary material.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus was bishop of Carthage c. 430–437. The letter is usually dated to the mid-430s, shortly after the Council of Ephesus (431), whose decisions it discusses.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter was cited in the sixth-century Collectio Avellana and later in medieval canon law collections, but it never achieved wide liturgical or theological circulation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text in this edition is based on a single printed source (ogl-pl) whose manuscript base is not fully verified. Variant readings from other witnesses are not recorded.","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: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 28 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"1 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:14."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":28},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"CAPREOLI CARTHAGINENSIS\n\nEPISTOLÆ.\n\na EPISTOLA PRIMA.\n\nAD CONCILIUM EPHESINUM.\n\nDe una Christi Dei et hominis persona adversus Nestorium.\n\ni, Optabam, piissimi fratres, venerandam vestram synodum in tali rerum statu congregatam fuisse, quo nobis quoque, delectis communi sententia aliquot ex fratribus et coepiscopis nostris, instructam potius legationem mittere licuisset, quam excusationem lamentatione dignam; nisi hanc animi nostri affectionem diversa causæ impedivissent. Primum enim domini et tilii nostri religiosissimi Theodosii imperaLoris litteræ ad manus nostras perlatæ, ejusmodi erant, quæ beatæ memoriae fratris et coepiscopi nostri » Augustini præsentiam peculiari ratione effiagitabant. Verum cum eæ litterae illum jam tum vivis excessisse comperissent, ego regiam illam. significationem, licet ad prædictum Augustinum præcipue destinata videretur, excipiens, missis ad universas Africæ provincias congruis litteris consuetisque sermonibus, synodum cogere volui convenientem; quo nimirum ex fratrum et episcoporum nostrorum numero seligerentur nonnulli, qui ad venerabilem beatitudinis vestræ synodum destinarentur. At omnis hac tempe. state viæ aditus praeclusus est.","english":"Capreolus of Carthage\n\nLetters\n\nLetter 1\n\nTo the Council of Ephesus\n\nOn the one person of Christ, God and man, against Nestorius.\n\nI had wished, most pious brothers, that your venerable synod had been convened at a time when it would have been possible for us as well, having chosen by common consent some of our brothers and fellow bishops, to send a delegation fully instructed, rather than an excuse worthy of lamentation—had not various obstacles hindered this disposition of our mind. For first, the letters of our most religious lord and son, the Emperor Theodosius, when brought into our hands, were of such a kind as demanded with particular insistence the presence of our brother and fellow bishop of blessed memory, Augustine. But since those letters found that he had already departed from among the living, I, taking up that imperial communication—although it seemed especially destined for the aforementioned Augustine—wished to convene a suitable synod by sending appropriate letters and customary addresses to all the provinces of Africa, so that from among the number of our brothers and bishops some might be selected to be sent to the venerable synod of your blessedness. But at this time every approach by road has been blocked.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Augustini","severity":"info","text":"Augustine of Hippo died in 430 during the Vandal siege of Hippo Regius. Capreolus, his successor as bishop of Carthage, here explains that Augustine's death prevented his attendance at the Council of Ephesus (431).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Optabam ... synodum ... congregatam fuisse","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus writes after Augustine's death (430) but before the Council of Ephesus convened (431). The letter's pluperfect subjunctive (congregatam fuisse) indicates the synod was already planned or in session when he wrote.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"domini et filii nostri religiosissimi Theodosii imperatoris","severity":"info","text":"Theodosius II, Eastern Roman emperor (408–450), convoked the Council of Ephesus. Capreolus calls him 'lord and son' (domini et filii) as a respectful formula reflecting the bishop's spiritual authority over the emperor as a Christian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"omnis hac tempestate viae aditus praeclusus est","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus refers to the Vandal conquest of Roman Africa, which by 431 had blocked sea and land routes. The Vandals under Geiseric had invaded Africa in 429 and captured Hippo in 430, isolating Carthage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Primum ... Verum ... At","severity":"info","text":"The letter's opening follows a three-part rhetorical structure: (1) the wish for a better-prepared delegation, (2) the emperor's summons of Augustine, and (3) the obstacle of blocked roads. Each is introduced by a temporal or adversative particle (Primum, Verum, At).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'excusationem lamentatione dignam' could mean either 'an excuse worthy of lamentation' (as translated) or 'an excuse that deserves lamentation'—the sense is the same. The identity of the 'fratres et coepiscopi' selected is not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Etenim effusa hostium multitudo, et ingens ubique provinciarum vastatio, quae incolis partim exstinctis, partim in fugam actis, miseram desolationis speciem, quoquoversum longe lateque porrigitur, oculis offert, promptam illam veniendi facultatem reprimit. His itaque impedimentis episcopi quibus propositum id erat, prohibiti, ex Africæ ambitu simul convenire nequiverunt. Hisce incommodis accedebat, litteras imperatoris in diebus paschæ ad nos perlatas esse, quando jam inde usque ad universalem venerandam synodum vix duorum mensium spatium supererat. Quod sane temporis intervallum, etsi nulla impraesentiarum ab hostibus difficultas fuisset objecta, vel ad Africanam synodum cogendam vix satis erat. Hinc factum est, ut licet solemnem aliquam legationem mittere nequaquam voluerimus, attamen propter reverentiam et observantiam quæ ecclesiasticae disciplinae debetur, filium meum Besulam diaconum una cum his excusationis litteris ad vos, venerabiles fratres, destinaverimus.","english":"For indeed the poured-out multitude of enemies, and the immense devastation of provinces everywhere, which offers to the eyes the wretched spectacle of desolation, spread far and wide in every direction, with the inhabitants partly destroyed, partly put to flight, restrains that ready ability to come. Thus hindered by these obstacles, the bishops who had that intention were prevented from being able to assemble together from the whole circuit of Africa. To these disadvantages was added that the emperor's letters were brought to us during the days of Easter, when scarcely a space of two months remained from then until the universal venerable synod. Which interval of time, even if no difficulty from the enemy had been presented at present, would scarcely have been sufficient for convening an African synod. Hence it came about that, although we by no means wished to send some solemn legation, nevertheless, on account of the reverence and observance which is due to ecclesiastical discipline, we have sent my son Besula the deacon together with this letter of excuse to you, venerable brothers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"hostium multitudo","severity":"info","text":"The 'poured-out multitude of enemies' likely refers to the Vandal incursions into North Africa, which intensified in the 420s and disrupted church governance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"litteras imperatoris in diebus paschæ","severity":"info","text":"The emperor's letters arriving at Easter, with only two months until the synod, dates the letter to early 431, as the Council of Ephesus convened in June 431.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Besulam diaconum","severity":"info","text":"Besula the deacon is the named messenger; his role as 'my son' may indicate a spiritual or ecclesiastical relationship, not necessarily biological.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"His itaque impedimentis ... prohibiti","severity":"info","text":"This sentence recapitulates the obstacles (enemy devastation, time constraints) before introducing the final decision to send a deacon with a letter of excuse.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"excusationis litteris","severity":"info","text":"This letter of excuse was preserved in Latin collections as part of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, showing its value as a historical witness to African absence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ex Africa ambitu' could mean 'from the whole circuit of Africa' or 'from the whole region of Africa'; the translation takes the former, implying a broad assembly.","The identity of 'Besula' is uncertain; he is not otherwise attested in surviving records."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"II. Quamobrem vestram sanctitatem iterum atque iterum rogatam cupio (etiamsi fidem catholicam per tantam venerandorum sacerdotum synodum, Dei nostri auxilio in omnibus stabilem ac firmam futuram certo confidam) ut Spiritu sancto cooperante, quem cordibus vestris in omnibus quae acturi estis, præsto futurum non dubito, novas doctrinas, et antehac eCClesiasticis auribus inusitatas, priscae auctoritatis robore instructi e medio profligetis, atque ita quibuscunque novis erroribus resislatis; ne hos quos pridem impugnavit Ecclesia, hisque temporibus repullulanles, apostolicæ sedis auctoritas, sacerdotumque in unum consonans sententia oppressit, secundæ disputationis prætextu vox jam dndum ablata renovare videatur. i Nam si quid forte novarum controversiarum inciderit, id discussioni subjiciatur oportet: ul vel recte dictum comprobelur, vel condemnatione dignuin explodatur. At vero si quis ea quae jam olim dijudicata sunt, denuo in disputationem vocari sinat; i; sane aliud nihil facere censebitur, quam de fide quæ hactenus valuit, ipsemet dubitare. Deinde ad posteritatis exemplum, ut ea quae nunc pro catholica fide definita sunt, perpetuam firmitatem obtinere valeant; oportet ea omnia inconcussa immotaque conservare, quæ superioribus temporibus a sanctis Patribus constituta sunt.","english":"II. Therefore I desire that your sanctity be entreated again and again (even though I am certainly confident that the catholic faith, through so great a synod of venerable priests, with the help of our God, will be stable and firm in all things), that, with the Holy Spirit cooperating, whom I do not doubt will be present to your hearts in all that you are about to do, you may, instructed by the strength of ancient authority, drive out from the midst new doctrines and those previously unheard by ecclesiastical ears, and thus resist whatever new errors; lest those which the Church formerly attacked, and which in these times are sprouting again, and which the authority of the apostolic see and the unanimous sentence of the priests have suppressed, should seem, under the pretext of a second discussion, to renew a voice already long silenced. For if by chance something of new controversies should arise, it ought to be subjected to discussion: so that either what is rightly said may be approved, or what is worthy of condemnation may be rejected. But if anyone allows those things which have long since been judged to be called again into dispute, he will certainly be considered to do nothing other than to doubt the faith which has prevailed up to now. Then, for the sake of an example to posterity, so that those things which are now defined for the catholic faith may obtain perpetual firmness, it is necessary that all those things which were established in earlier times by the holy Fathers be preserved unshaken and unmoved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"novas doctrinas, et antehac ecclesiasticis auribus inusitatas","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus frames novelty as a threat to ecclesiastical tradition, a common topos in anti-heretical polemic of the fifth century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"priscae auctoritatis robore","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'strength of ancient authority' invokes the normative weight of patristic tradition, a key argument in the Pelagian and Nestorian controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"apostolicæ sedis auctoritas","severity":"info","text":"Reference to the authority of the apostolic see (Rome) reflects the growing jurisdictional claims of the Roman bishop in the 5th century, especially under Pope Leo I.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Deinde ad posteritatis exemplum","severity":"info","text":"This clause introduces a second purpose for the synod's decisions: to provide a stable precedent for future generations, reinforcing the permanence of conciliar definitions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"secundæ disputationis prætextu","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus warns against reopening settled doctrinal questions, a concern echoed in later conciliar and papal decrees that prohibited re-examination of defined dogmas.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"repullulantes","severity":"caution","text":"The verb 'repullulantes' (sprouting again) is a botanical metaphor for heresy's recurrence; the reading is secure, but the metaphor's force may be lost in translation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quos pridem impugnavit Ecclesia' could refer to specific heresies (e.g., Pelagianism, Nestorianism) but Capreolus does not name them explicitly."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Nam qui illam perpetuam stabilitatem retinere voluerit quæ de catbolicae lidei ratione statuerit, is non propria auctoritate, sed anliquorum Patrum judicio sententiam suam corroborare debet: ita ut ea ratione partim veterum, partim recentiorum decretis et sententiis placita sua comprobans, unicam Ecclesiæ veritatem jam inde ab initio ad præsens usque tempus simplici puritate invictaque constantia et auctoritate decurrentem, se asserere, docere et tenere ostendat. Hæc pro praesenti Africanorum a legatione, quam necessitas superius memorata impedivit, venerabilibus vestris auribus suggerere volui; obnixe interim rogans, ut calamitatibus rerum praesentiumque temporum spectatis, nostram absentiam non superbiæ aut negligentiæ, sed manifestæ huic necessitati ascribere velitis.\n\nCyrillus Ecclesiæ Alexandrinae episcopus dixit: Et hæc reverendissimi piissimique Carthaginis episcopi Capreoli quæ lecta est epistola, cum dilucidam sententiam in se contineat, fidei gestorum inseratur. Vult enim antiqua fidei dogmata confirmari, nova vero et absurde excogitata et impie divulgata reprobari ac proscribi.","english":"For whoever wishes to retain that perpetual stability which has been established by the reason of the catholic faith, he ought to confirm his own opinion not by his own authority, but by the judgment of the ancient Fathers: so that, by that reasoning, partly confirming his own views by the decrees and opinions of the ancients, partly by those of more recent times, he may show that he asserts, teaches, and holds the unique truth of the Church, which runs from the very beginning down to the present time with simple purity and unconquered constancy and authority. I wished to suggest these things to your venerable ears on behalf of the present legation of the Africans, which the necessity mentioned above hindered; earnestly begging in the meantime that, having regard to the calamities of affairs and of the present times, you may be willing to ascribe our absence not to pride or negligence, but to this manifest necessity.\n\nCyril, bishop of the Church of Alexandria, said: And this letter of the most reverend and most pious Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, which has been read, since it contains a clear opinion in itself, let it be inserted into the acts of the faith. For he wishes the ancient dogmas of the faith to be confirmed, but those which are new and absurdly contrived and impiously disseminated to be rejected and proscribed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"perpetuam stabilitatem","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus argues that doctrinal stability requires grounding in patristic authority, not personal opinion, a key anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian stance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"catbolicae lidei","severity":"info","text":"The spelling 'catbolicae lidei' is a scribal variant for 'catholicae fidei' (catholic faith), reflecting late Latin orthographic fluidity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hæc pro praesenti Africanorum a legatione","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks the conclusion of Capreolus's letter proper, followed by Cyril's formal response, which orders the letter inserted into the conciliar acts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Cyrillus Ecclesiæ Alexandrinae episcopus dixit","severity":"info","text":"Cyril of Alexandria's endorsement here shows the letter's acceptance at the Council of Ephesus (431), affirming its authority against Nestorianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"necessitas superius memorata","severity":"info","text":"The 'necessity' refers to the Vandal invasion of North Africa, which prevented African bishops from attending the Council of Ephesus in person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"anliquorum Patrum","severity":"caution","text":"The spelling 'anliquorum' is likely a scribal error for 'antiquorum' (ancient), but the sense is clear from context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'catbolicae lidei' is a clear scribal variant for 'catholicae fidei'; no ambiguity in meaning."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Omnes episcopi simul exclamaverunt: Hae omnium voces: hæc omnes asserimus: hoc omnium est votum.\n\nEPISTOLA\n\nSERVORUM DEI VITALIS ET CONSTANTII SPANORUM AD S. CAPREOLUM EPiSCOPUM ECCLESIÆ CATHOLICÆ CAR THAGINIS.\n\nDomino et vencrabili et beatissimo in Christo famulo Dei, domino nostro Capreolo, Vitalis et Constantius peccatores.\n\nQuae prima vola sunt humilitatis nostrae, plurimum salutamus sanctam perfectamque et venerabilem beatitudinem tuam, et sanam atque incolumem semper Deo propitio audire desideramus: quia etsi in lon ginquo positi sumus a sancto apostolatu vestro, mari terminante, sed in præsentia vestri sumus semper in orationibus sanctitatis vestrae, domine Pater. Illud sane mullum desiderii nostri fuit, scribere sanctae honorificentiæ tuae per dulcissimum fratrem nostrum Numinianum. Reperit enim parvitas nostra præcellentem famam et doctrinam tuæ sanctitatis: per quam et scribimus beatitudini tuae, ut ait Psalmographus: In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terræ verba eorum (Psal. XVIII, 5). Illud etiam consulimus honorificentiam tuam, ut de bono thesauro cordis tui nostris visceribus irrigari jubeas, quae fides catbolica recta teneat. Quia sunt bic quidam qui dicunt non debere dici Deum natum. Nam et haec est fides eorum, hominem purum natum fuisse de Maria virgine, et post haec Deum habitasse in eo.","english":"All the bishops cried out together: These are the voices of all: this we all affirm: this is the prayer of all.\n\nLETTER\n\nOF THE SERVANTS OF GOD VITALIS AND CONSTANTIUS, SPANIARDS, TO SAINT CAPREOLUS, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CARTHAGE.\n\nTo the lord and venerable and most blessed servant of God in Christ, our lord Capreolus, Vitalis and Constantius, sinners.\n\nWith the first wishes of our humility, we greatly salute your holy, perfect, and venerable blessedness, and we desire always to hear that you are safe and well, with God propitious: because, although we are placed far from your holy apostolate, with the sea as a boundary, yet we are always present to you in the prayers of your holiness, lord Father. That indeed was a great desire of ours, to write to your holy honorificence through our most dear brother Numinianus. For our littleness has discovered the preeminent fame and teaching of your holiness: through which we also write to your blessedness, as the Psalmist says: Their sound has gone out into every land, and their words to the ends of the earth (Psalm 18:5). We also consult your honorificence, that you order to be irrigated from the good treasury of your heart into our inmost being, what the catholic faith rightly holds. For there are some here who say that God ought not to be said to be born. For this also is their faith, that a pure man was born of the virgin Mary, and after this God dwelt in him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnes episcopi simul exclamaverunt","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the preceding conciliar acclamation and is set off in the source as a separate paragraph, marking a transition from the council's voice to the letter proper.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terræ verba eorum (Psal. XVIII, 5)","severity":"info","text":"The citation is from Psalm 18:5 (Vulgate numbering; = Psalm 19:5 in modern Bibles). The writers apply the psalmist's words to the spread of Capreolus's fame.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Vitalis et Constantius Spanorum","severity":"info","text":"Vitalis and Constantius are identified as Spaniards (Spanorum). Their letter to Capreolus of Carthage reflects the reach of North African theological authority into the western Mediterranean during the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"fides catbolica recta teneat","severity":"info","text":"The spelling 'catbolica' (for catholica) is a scribal variant common in late Latin manuscripts, not a theological distinction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"homines purum natum fuisse de Maria virgine, et post haec Deum habitasse in eo","severity":"info","text":"This describes a Christological position that separates the human Jesus from the divine Logos, akin to adoptionist or Nestorian tendencies, which Capreolus opposed at the Council of Ephesus (431).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hae omnium voces: hæc omnes asserimus: hoc omnium est votum","severity":"info","text":"The acclamation formula echoes the conciliar style of the Council of Ephesus (431), where Capreolus was represented. The letter thus situates itself within the broader anti-Nestorian consensus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Numinianus' (the bearer of the letter) is unknown outside this text.","The phrase 'prima vola' is likely a scribal error for 'prima vota' (first wishes), as adopted in the English draft."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Quorum nos humiles pueri tui resistimus affirmationi, non ita debere dici: sed confitemur, ut ait evangelista, annuntiante angelo Gabriele Mariæ dicente: Spiritus sanctus veniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi: ideoque quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei (Luc. It 35);\n\nII. Confitemur itaque Deum fuisse in utero Mari. virginis, assumpsisse aliquam partem, fabricasse Deum sibi hominem, natum fuisse Deum verum et hominem verum quem assumpsit pro salute generis humani, ut ait Apostolus: Cum venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret (Gal. IV, 4). Et iterum: Hoc autem sentite in vobis, quod et in Christo Jesu: qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse æquali. Deo: sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Humiliavit semetipsum factus obediens Meaque ad mortem, mortem uutem crucis (Philip. II, 5-8). Et iterum: Mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus (I Tim. II, 5). Quia mediator nec jam Deus tantum pure sine homine quem assumpsit dici potest, nec homo sine Deo: quia duplex in una persona mediatoris significatio, Deus et bomo: dum Deus de Deo Deus, et secundum carnem idem ipse filius hominis. Ideo verus Deus et homo verus est hic mediator, sicut de forma Dei et forma hominis.","english":"We, your humble servants, resist that affirmation, that it should not be said thus: but we confess, as the evangelist says, when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary, saying: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: and therefore that which will be born from you, holy, will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).\n\nII. We confess, therefore, that God was in the womb of the Virgin Mary, that he assumed some part, that he fashioned for himself a man from God, that he was born true God and true man, whom he assumed for the salvation of the human race, as the Apostle says: When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law (Galatians 4:4). And again: But think this in yourselves, which is also in Christ Jesus: who, when he was in the form of God, did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God: but he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, death on the cross (Philippians 2:5-8). And again: The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Because the mediator can neither be called purely God alone without the man he assumed, nor man without God: because there is a double meaning in the one person of the mediator, God and man: while God from God is God, and according to the flesh the same is the son of man. Therefore he is true God and true man, this mediator, as from the form of God and the form of man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Luc. It 35","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Luc. It 35' is a garbled reference to Luke 1:35, likely a scribal error for 'Luc. I, 35'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gal. IV, 4","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Gal. IV, 4' refers to Galatians 4:4, but the quoted text does not match the Vulgate; it may be a loose paraphrase or a variant reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philip. II, 5-8","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Philip. II, 5-8' refers to Philippians 2:5-8, but the quoted text diverges from the Vulgate, suggesting a non-standard source or memory citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Tim. II, 5","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Tim. II, 5' refers to 1 Timothy 2:5, but the quoted phrase 'Mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus' is not found in the Vulgate; it may be a conflation or apocryphal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mediator","severity":"info","text":"The term 'mediator' (mediator) is used in a Christological sense, reflecting early Latin theology of Christ as mediator between God and humanity, a concept developed by Tertullian and later Latin fathers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus sanctus veniet in te","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Spiritus sanctus veniet in te' echoes a variant of the Annunciation narrative, possibly from a Latin translation of a non-canonical source or a liturgical text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains several garbled or non-standard scripture citations (e.g., 'Luc. It 35', 'Gal. IV, 4', 'Philip. II, 5-8', 'I Tim. II, 5') that do not match the Vulgate; the intended verses are uncertain.","The phrase 'mortem uutem crucis' is a scribal error for 'mortem autem crucis' (death on the cross).","The theological assertion that God 'assumpsisse aliquam partem' (assumed some part) is ambiguous and may reflect a specific Christological position, possibly Apollinarian or Nestorian, but the text does not clarify."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Nam et in principio inchoalionis ad Romanos sic dicit sanctus Apostolus: Quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem: qui prædestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, Jesu Christi Domini nostri (Rom. I, 2-4). Verum etiam et Isaias auctor prophetarum sic dicit: Ecce virgo in utero concipiet, et pariet filium, et vocabitis nomen ejus Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum, Nobiscum Deus (Isai. VII, 14; Matth. i, 23). Sed et hominem purum dicunt pependisse in cruce comprehensum: aiunt, Recessit Deus ab eo. Quibus parvitas nostra sic dicit, Nunquam Dens recessit ab homine assumpto, nisi quando dixit de cruce: Heli, Heli, Lammasabactani: Deus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti (Matth. XXVII, 46)? Ideoque provoluti genibus exoramus humiles servi tui sanctum apostolatum vestrum, ut informetis parvitatem nostram in his quod rectum habet fides catholica: et detis veniam insipientiæ vel imperitiæ nostræ, si quid per ignorantiam incedimus. Potens est Dominus Christus sanclis orationibus vestris nobis veniam dare, ne deveniamus in profundum malorum. Ora pro nobis, domine sancte, venerabilis et beatissime papa.","english":"For also at the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans the holy Apostle speaks thus: That which he had previously promised through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son, who was born to him from the seed of David according to the flesh: who was predestined to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification, from the resurrection of the dead, of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:2-4). And indeed Isaiah, the chief of the prophets, speaks thus: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bear a son, and you will call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23). But they say that a mere man hung on the cross, having been seized: they claim, God departed from him. To these our littleness speaks thus: God never departed from the assumed man, except when he said from the cross: Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Matt. 27:46)? And therefore, prostrate on our knees, we, your humble servants, beseech your holy apostolate, that you may inform our littleness in these matters as to what the catholic faith holds to be right: and that you may grant pardon for our ignorance or inexperience, if we have proceeded in any way through ignorance. The Lord Christ is able, through your holy prayers, to grant us pardon, lest we fall into the depth of evils. Pray for us, holy, venerable, and most blessed lord pope.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. I, 2-4","severity":"info","text":"The citation conflates Romans 1:2-4 with a paraphrase of Romans 1:3-4, likely from a pre-Vulgate Latin tradition; the wording 'ex semine David' echoes Romans 1:3 but is not verbatim.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Isai. VII, 14; Matth. i, 23","severity":"info","text":"The Isaiah citation (7:14) is non-standard; the Vulgate reads 'ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium' at Isaiah 7:14, but the verse numbering differs. Matthew 1:23 confirms the interpretation 'Nobiscum Deus'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XXVII, 46","severity":"info","text":"The Aramaic cry 'Heli, Heli, Lammasabactani' is transliterated from Matthew 27:46; the Latin text adds a translation, reflecting early Latin Gospel harmonies or liturgical use.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Capreolus Carthaginensis","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus, bishop of Carthage (fl. 430s), wrote this letter to Pope Leo I (or possibly Celestine I) seeking doctrinal clarification against Pelagian or Nestorian views; the 'humble servants' formula is typical of African episcopal correspondence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"parvitas nostra","severity":"info","text":"'Parvitas nostra' ('our littleness') is a standard Latin humility topos in late antique ecclesiastical letters, contrasting the bishop's self-deprecation with the pope's authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"narrative","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from scriptural citation (Romans, Isaiah) to direct refutation of an opponent's claim ('aiunt, Recessit Deus ab eo'), then to a petition, forming a tripartite rhetorical structure: authority, argument, appeal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact addressee of the letter is uncertain: 'sanctum apostolatum vestrum' and 'beatissime papa' suggest a pope, but whether Leo I or Celestine I is debated.","The phrase 'in principio inchoalionis ad Romanos' may be a scribal error for 'in principio inchoationis ad Romanos' ('at the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans'), but the text is corrupt."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"SUBSCRIPTIO.\n\nIncolumem venerabilitatem tuam nobis Dominus noster Jesus longiorem conservet, domine sancte ac venerabilis papa.\n\nEPISTOLA II SEU RESCRIPTUM\n\nAD VITALEM ET a CONSTANTIUM.\n\nDe una Christi veri Dei et hominis persona, contra\n\nrecens damnalam hæresim Nestorii.\n\nDilectissimis et religiosis tiliis Vitali et Constanlio Capreolus episcopus.\n\nI. Sumptis atque perlectis litteris vestris, quas per Numinianum religiosum virum, filii dilectissimi, lransmisistis, saluti et studio vestro quo fundatæ ac vetustæ catholicae fidei regulam inviolabili pietate tenetis ac defenditis, plurimum gratulatus, adverti Nestorianam haeresim, novam infandamquc perniciem, sicut quibusdam locis jam coeperat pullulare, apud vos quoque velle zizaniæ suæ semina in peritorum corda jacere. Verum credo atque confido, perfectum agricolam Dominum nostrum, omnium creatorem, in omni loco dominationis suæ habere ac semper habuisse dignos evangelicæ frugis operarips; qui, licet ante tempus demessionis immunda semina exslirpari non debeant, continuis tamen orationibus ac prædicationibus semper invigilent: ita ut et illa, si fieri dum tempus est potuerit, convertantur et commutentur in triticum: aut certe non usquequaque inimicus humani generis tenera frumentorum genera nascentia per adulterinam intermixlionem valcat suffocare.","english":"SUBSCRIPTION.\n\nMay our Lord Jesus preserve your venerable health for a longer time, holy and venerable lord pope.\n\nLETTER II OR RESCRIPT\n\nTO VITALIS AND CONSTANTIUS.\n\nConcerning the one person of Christ, true God and man, against the recently condemned heresy of Nestorius.\n\nTo the most beloved and religious sons Vitalis and Constantius, Capreolus, bishop.\n\nI. Having taken up and read through your letter, which you transmitted through Numinianus, a religious man, most beloved sons, I greatly rejoiced at your zeal and devotion, by which you hold and defend the rule of the established and ancient catholic faith with inviolable piety, and I observed that the Nestorian heresy, a new and unspeakable pestilence, just as it had already begun to sprout in certain places, also wishes to cast the seeds of its tares into the hearts of the inexperienced among you. But I believe and trust that our perfect husbandman, the Lord, the creator of all, has and always has had in every place of his dominion worthy laborers of the evangelical harvest; who, although before the time of harvest the unclean seeds ought not to be uprooted, nevertheless always keep watch with continuous prayers and preachings: so that those seeds, if it can be done while there is time, may be converted and changed into wheat: or at least that the enemy of the human race may not be able to suffocate the tender growing kinds of grain everywhere through adulterous intermixture.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"SUBSCRIPTIO","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a formal subscription, a closing salutation typical of late antique letters, here placed before the second letter as a heading in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorianam haeresim","severity":"info","text":"Nestorianism, condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431), denied the unity of Christ's divine and human natures in one person. Capreolus writes shortly after this condemnation, as indicated by 'recens damnalam'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Numinianum","severity":"info","text":"Numinianus is the letter-carrier (perlator) who delivered Vitalis and Constantius's letter to Capreolus. Such named couriers are common in late antique ecclesiastical correspondence and help authenticate the exchange.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"perfectum agricolam","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of Christ as the 'perfect husbandman' (agricola) draws on agricultural imagery common in patristic exegesis, especially in anti-heretical contexts, to describe divine oversight of the church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"zizaniae suae semina","severity":"info","text":"The image of tares (zizania) sown among wheat echoes the parable of the weeds (Matt 13:24-30) and was a standard patristic trope for heresy, used by Augustine and others to describe doctrinal corruption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"lransmisistis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains a probable scribal error: 'lransmisistis' is likely a misreading or misspelling of 'transmisistis' (you transmitted). The English draft corrects this without comment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Vitalis and Constantius is not specified; they may be local clergy or monks in Gaul or North Africa. The subscription's addressee ('domine sancte ac venerabilis papa') is ambiguous—likely a bishop of Rome, but not named."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Jam enim, quod etiam ad vestram notitiam pervenisse non dubito, intra Orientis partes, ubi primum pestis ista surrexit, congregata gloriosa synodo sacerdotum, cui etiam legatio nostra non defuit c, in vestibulo cum suo auctore atque assertore compressa et radio apostolicæ lucis exstincta est. Nec mirari debet caritas vestra, si etiam post damnationem suam inter morientes spiritus fetidus adhuc Datus aspiret. Est enim semper pertinax hæreticorum audacia, et in sua male pernicie urgente peccatorum pondere perseverat. Quod si nondum forsitan cognovistis, facili lectione poteritis agnoscere.\n\nII. Quamvis igitur Christianis et devotis mentibus ipsa universalis Ecclesiæ auctoritas plene sufficiat, nec vestra, quantum missus a vobis sermo perdocuit, in hac causa minor videatur assertio: ne tamen ego quoque petitioni atque interrogationi sanctæ necessarium videar negare responsum, unam veramque doctrinam hanc esse confitemur, quam evangelica tenet ac tradit antiquitas.","english":"For already—and I do not doubt that this has also reached your notice—within the regions of the East, where that plague first arose, a glorious synod of priests was gathered, at which our legation was not absent, and in its very entrance it was crushed together with its author and champion, and extinguished by the ray of apostolic light. Nor should your Charity be surprised if, even after its condemnation, among dying spirits a fetid breath still puffs forth Datus. For the audacity of heretics is always stubborn, and it persists in its evil perdition, urged on by the weight of its sins. But if perhaps you have not yet learned this, you may come to know it by an easy reading.\n\nII. Therefore, although for Christian and devout minds the authority of the universal Church itself is fully sufficient, and your assertion in this matter—as the discourse sent by you has fully taught—does not seem inferior, yet, lest I too should appear to deny a necessary response to the holy petition and inquiry, we confess that this is the one true doctrine which evangelical antiquity holds and hands down.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"intra Orientis partes, ubi primum pestis ista surrexit","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus locates the origin of Nestorianism in the East, specifically where the 'plague' first arose, referring to the Nestorian controversy that began in Constantinople and spread through the Eastern provinces.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"gloriosa synodo sacerdotum","severity":"info","text":"This synod is the Council of Ephesus (431), which condemned Nestorius. Capreolus notes that his legation was present, affirming African participation in the condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Datus","severity":"info","text":"'Datus' is a proper name, likely referring to a person (perhaps a supporter of Nestorius) or a personification of the heresy. The Latin 'Datus' may be a textual corruption or a deliberate pun on 'datum' (given), but the sense is of a lingering foul breath.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"II. Quamvis igitur","severity":"info","text":"The passage begins a new section (II) with a concessive clause, shifting from historical narrative to doctrinal affirmation, emphasizing the sufficiency of Church authority while still providing a response to the petitioners.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"evangelica tenet ac tradit antiquitas","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus appeals to 'evangelical antiquity' as the norm of doctrine, a common patristic trope that later became central in the Vincentian Canon (Vincent of Lérins) for determining orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Datus' is unclear: it may be a person, a textual error, or a rhetorical personification. The reading taken treats it as a proper name or personification of the lingering heresy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Id est: Dei Filium, Deum verum, et bominem verum, unius prorsus atque inscparabilis esse personæ: nec sicut in aliis patriarchis, prophetis, apostolis, cæterisque sanctis et præclarissimis viris habitavit aut habitat Deus, ita in Chrislum Jesum divinam illam plenitudinem velut extrinsecns credimus advenisse; sed proprio quodam atque ineffabili modo, Filium Dei etiam filium hominis factum: ut qui ingenita Patris substantia unigenitus permanebat ac permanet, mirabiliter suscepto homine, fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus (Rom. VIII, 29): et qui erat in principio Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum, Verbum caro fieret et habitaret in nobis (Joan. I, I, 14). Ex quo igitur mysterium quod absconditum fuit a sæculis (Col. I, 26) in Deo, coepit per angelum in utcro virginis operari, atque in ea sanctus Spiritus supervenit, et illi virtus Allissimi obumbravit (Luc. I, 35); Deus in homine nasci dignatus est, qui semper erat, ut homo nasceretur, qualis ante non fuerat. Qui enim sine matre in cœlis æterne genitus, ipse in terris sine patre in utero virginis homo de Spiritu sancto creatus est. Et ideo in Christo Jesu separari vel subdividi Dei hominisque nullo modo credimus posse personam: ne non jam in divinitate Triuitas, sed quaternitas numeretur.","english":"That is: that the Son of God, true God and true man, is entirely and inseparably one person; and we do not believe that the divine fullness came into Christ Jesus as if from outside, as it dwelt or dwells in other patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and the rest of the most holy and illustrious men; but in a certain proper and ineffable way, the Son of God also became the son of man: so that he who remained and remains the only-begotten of the Father’s unbegotten substance, by miraculously taking on man, became the firstborn among many brothers (Rom. 8:29); and he who was in the beginning the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14). From the time, therefore, when the mystery which was hidden from the ages (Col. 1:26) in God began to work through the angel in the virgin’s womb, and the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her (Luke 1:35); God deigned to be born in man, he who always was, so that man might be born, such as had not been before. For he who was eternally begotten without a mother in heaven, he himself on earth was created without a father in the virgin’s womb from the Holy Spirit. And therefore we believe that in Christ Jesus the person of God and man can in no way be separated or subdivided: lest the Trinity in the Godhead be counted not as three but as four.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Id est","severity":"info","text":"This phrase introduces a doctrinal clarification, likely summarizing or expanding the preceding argument against Nestorianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. VIII, 29","severity":"info","text":"The citation Rom. 8:29 is a variant reading; modern Bibles place the phrase 'firstborn among many brothers' at Rom. 8:29, but the Vulgate and some manuscripts differ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. I, 1, 14","severity":"info","text":"The reference to John 1:1 and 1:14 conflates two verses; John 1:14 is not standard, likely a scribal error for John 1:14 (the Word became flesh) or a conflation with 1:1.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"quaternitas","severity":"info","text":"The term 'quaternitas' (quaternity) is a technical anti-Nestorian coinage, warning that separating Christ's natures would add a fourth entity to the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"mysterium quod absconditum fuit a sæculis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Col. 1:26 and reflects the early Christian idea that the Incarnation was a mystery hidden from eternity, revealed in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. VIII, 29","severity":"caution","text":"The verse reference 'Rom. VIII, 29' is problematic; the phrase 'firstborn among many brothers' does not appear in standard Romans 8:29, suggesting a textual corruption or misattribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture references (Rom. 8:29, John 1:14) are non-standard and may reflect scribal error or variant manuscript traditions.","The phrase 'mysterium quod absconditum fuit a sæculis' may be a loose paraphrase of Col. 1:26 rather than a direct quotation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:14","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the word became flesh”, which matches John 1:14. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"III. Beatus apostolus Paulus dum ad exuendum veterem hominem et induendum novum fideles exhortaretur: Primus, inquit, homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de coelo coelestis: qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; et qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes: quomodo portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus et imaginem ejus qui de cœlo est (I Cor. xv, 47-49). Rogo dicant, quomodo est homo iste de coelo, si non est Deus conceptus in utero? aut quæ discrelio est carnis et sanguinis in homine Adam, et in homine Chriito, si non homo iste plenus est Deo? Quid enim sibi vult secundus homo de caelo? Nunquid caro transmissa descendit, ac non, sicut scriptum est, Spiritus sanctus in virginem supervenit? Sed quia Verbum raro factum est (Joan. I, 14), ideo coelestis homo appellatus est. Nec propterea carnem veram non habuit, quia de coelo descendit; quia carnem Deus acc cpit. Merito de se ipso idem Dominus dixit: Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui de cœlo descendit, filius hominis qui est in cœlo (Joan. III, 13). Certe adhuc loquebatur in terra, nec ad Patrem post victoriam passionis et gloriam resurrectionis ascenderat: et tamen filium hominis jam in cælo esse dicebat.","english":"III. When the blessed apostle Paul was exhorting the faithful to put off the old man and put on the new, he said: \"The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthly man, so are the earthly; and as is the heavenly man, so are the heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, let us also bear the image of him who is from heaven\" (1 Cor. 15:47-49). I ask them to tell me: how is this man from heaven, if he is not God conceived in the womb? Or what distinction is there of flesh and blood in the man Adam and in the man Christ, if this man is not full of God? For what does \"the second man from heaven\" mean? Did a transmitted flesh descend, and not, as it is written, the Holy Spirit come upon the virgin? But because the Word became flesh (John 1:14), he is therefore called the heavenly man. Nor for that reason did he lack true flesh, because he descended from heaven; for God took on flesh. Rightly the same Lord said of himself: \"No one ascends into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the son of man who is in heaven\" (John 3:13). Certainly he was still speaking on earth, and had not yet ascended to the Father after the victory of his passion and the glory of his resurrection; and yet he said that the son of man was already in heaven.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Cor. xv, 47-49","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus adapts 1 Cor 15:47-49, a Pauline contrast between the earthly and heavenly man, to argue for Christ's unique divine conception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. I, 14","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Verbum caro factum est' (John 1:14) grounds the title 'heavenly man' in the Incarnation, not in a docetic descent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. III, 13","severity":"info","text":"John 3:13 is quoted to show Christ's pre-resurrection claim that the Son of Man is already in heaven, supporting the unity of his person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"secundus homo de caelo","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus refutes a literal descent of Christ's flesh from heaven, countering docetic or Apollinarian interpretations of Paul's phrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"coelestis homo","severity":"info","text":"'Heavenly man' is a Christological title here, denoting Christ's divine origin without denying his true human flesh.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"III.","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the third section of the letter, continuing a polemical argument against those who deny Christ's full divinity and humanity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'coelestis' may be read as 'heavenly' or 'celestial'; the translation adopts 'heavenly' to match the Pauline context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Hoc utique omni veritate testificans, quia et propter homine Deus conversabatur in terra, et propter Deum homo habitabat in cælo- Unde etiam Apostolus: Qui descendit, inqnit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes coelos, ut adimpleret omnia (Ephea. IV, 10). Item alibi, cnm de carnis suæ cibo et potu sanguinis Salvator ipse mystice loqueretur, sciens quod offensi ex hoc ejus discipuli murmurarent dicentes: Durus est hic sermo, quis potest eum audire (Joan. vi, 61)? sic ait: Hoc vos scandalizat? Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius (Ibid., 63)? Ecce et hic advertitis quemadmodum propter unitatem Dei hominisque personæ, filium hominis ubi erat prius perhihet ascensurum, quem in utero virginis constat esse formatum, ut ex eo humanæ nativitatis sumpsisset principium.\n\nIV. Nemo itaquc sacrilego spiritu audeat separare quod videt in coelo et in terra unitate inseparabili permanere. Sicut enim ab omnipolentia Deitatis homo Christus Jesus esse non potest alienus; ita et ab his quæ in hominem vel circa hominem gesta sunt, separari non potest Deus. Natus ergo est homo qui nondum fuerat, quia Verbum caro factum est, et inhabitavit in nobis (Joan. i, 14). Simili modo passus est impassibilis per passibilem quem suscepit, et immortalis mortuus est, et qui nunquam moritur resurrexit.","english":"This he certainly attests with all truth, because on account of man God dwelt on earth, and on account of God man dwelt in heaven. Whence also the Apostle: \"He who descended,\" he says, \"is the same who ascended above all heavens, to fill all things\" (Eph. 4:10). Likewise elsewhere, when the Savior himself was speaking mystically about the food of his flesh and the drink of his blood, knowing that his disciples, offended by this, would murmur, saying: \"This saying is hard; who can hear it?\" (John 6:61), he speaks thus: \"Does this scandalize you? If, then, you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before\" (John 6:62)? Behold, here too you note how, on account of the unity of the person of God and man, he declares that the Son of Man will ascend where he was before, he who is known to have been formed in the womb of the virgin, so that from that point he might have taken the beginning of human birth.\n\nIV. Let no one, therefore, with a sacrilegious spirit dare to separate what is seen to remain in heaven and on earth in inseparable unity. For just as the man Christ Jesus cannot be alien from the omnipotence of the Godhead, so too God cannot be separated from those things which were done in or concerning the man. Therefore, a man was born who had not yet existed, because the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). In like manner, the impassible suffered through the passible whom he assumed, and the immortal died, and he who never dies rose again.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Eph. 4:10","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Eph. 4:10' is not a standard verse; it likely conflates Eph. 4:10 ('He who descended is the same who ascended') with a non-canonical or adapted source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John 6:61-63","severity":"info","text":"The quotation 'Durus est hic sermo, quis potest eum audire?' (John 6:61) and 'Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius' (John 6:62) are adapted from the Vulgate, with 'ascendentem' reflecting Christ's ascension rather than the original context of the Eucharist.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unitas personae","severity":"info","text":"'Unitatem Dei hominisque personae' (unity of the person of God and man) is a key Christological term, asserting the hypostatic union against Nestorian tendencies, common in Latin anti-Nestorian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sacrilego spiritu","severity":"info","text":"'Sacrilego spiritu' (sacrilegious spirit) reflects the polemical context of the 5th-century Nestorian controversy, where separating Christ's natures was deemed heretical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"narrative","severity":"info","text":"This passage transitions from scriptural exegesis (section III) to a doctrinal exhortation (section IV), marked by 'Nemo itaque' (Let no one, therefore), summarizing the unity of Christ's natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Eph. 4:10","severity":"caution","text":"The verse 'Eph. 4:10' is not found in canonical Ephesians; it may be a misattribution or a lost variant. The text's reliability for Pauline citation is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'Eph. 4:10' is non-standard; its source is unclear. The phrase 'ascendentem ubi erat prius' in John 6:62 may be a conflation with ascension theology rather than the original Eucharistic discourse."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Neque cnim vel in passione defuit illi homini Deus: alioquin non est Dominus gloriæ crucifixus (1 Cor. II, 8). An dicimus Deum in suscepto homine.,tiam apud inferos non fuissc? aut vero metuendum est, ne divinitas ibi quasi pœnaliter fuerit, quam i ulla qualitas afficit, nulla demensio circumscribit? cujus magnitudinem nemo capit, præsentiam nemo fugit, secretum nemo invenit, splendorem nullus attingit? Times includi immensum? teneri oronipotentem abscondi ubicunque diffusum? Resolvere, sicut scriptum est, inferorum parturitiones, in quibus voluit et qualiter voluit rerum Dominus, subjici hujusmodi conditioni non potuit (Act. II, 24), Audi eum ante tot annornm millia, dum beato Jbb mirabilium suorum opera per nubem velut improperanti similis prædicaret, hoc quoque inter innumeras sui potentias cumulantem: Nunquid tu abstulisti impiis tucem, aut brachium auperborum comminuisti? aut renisti ad fines maris aut in vestigiis abyssi ambulasti? aut tibi, inquit, aperientur metu portæ mortis, aut janitores inferni videntes te timuerunt? aut cognovisti latitudinem sub cœlo (lob XXXVIII, 15-18, sec. LXX)? Si Patris hæc vox est, nihil erge est omnipotenti diffacile, quoniam ubique est, nusquam non est. Quando ei etiam propbeta ex persona cujusdam dicti: Quo ibo a spiritu tuo, et a facie tua quo fugiam? si ascendero in cælum, tu ibi ea; si descendero in infernum, ades (Psal.","english":"Nor indeed was God absent from that man in his passion: otherwise the Lord of glory would not have been crucified (1 Cor. 2:8). Or shall we say that God, in the man he assumed, was not even among the dead? Or is it truly to be feared that the divinity was there as if under penalty—that divinity which no quality affects, no dimension circumscribes, whose greatness no one comprehends, whose presence no one escapes, whose secret no one finds, whose splendor no one attains? Do you fear to enclose the immeasurable? to hold the omnipotent? to hide what is diffused everywhere? He could not be subject to such a condition as to resolve, as it is written, the birth-pangs of the underworld, in which the Lord of things willed and as he willed (Acts 2:24). Hear him, many thousands of years ago, while he proclaimed to blessed Job the works of his wonders through a cloud, as if reproaching him, and among his innumerable powers he also heaped up this: \"Did you not take away the light from the impious, or break the arm of the proud? Or did you come to the ends of the sea, or walk in the tracks of the abyss? Or,\" he says, \"will the gates of death be opened for you in fear, or will the gatekeepers of hell, seeing you, be afraid? Or did you know the breadth under heaven?\" (Job 38:15-18, according to the Septuagint). If this is the voice of the Father, then nothing is difficult for the omnipotent, because he is everywhere, nowhere is he not. When also the prophet says, from the person of someone: \"Where shall I go from your spirit, and from your face where shall I flee? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I descend into hell, you are present\" (Ps.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"1 Cor. II, 8","severity":"info","text":"The citation '1 Cor. II, 8' corresponds to 1 Cor 2:8, but the quoted phrase 'Dominus gloriæ crucifixus' is actually from 1 Cor 2:8 in the Vulgate, where Paul speaks of Christ crucified as Lord of glory.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Act. II, 24","severity":"info","text":"The reference 'Act. II, 24' is Acts 2:24, which speaks of God resolving the pangs of death and hell, here applied to Christ's descent into the underworld.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Job 38:15-18 (sec. LXX)","severity":"info","text":"The passage from Job 38:15-18 follows the Septuagint numbering, which differs from the Hebrew; the Latin text here reflects the LXX tradition, emphasizing God's rhetorical questions about Job's inability to control the underworld.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"inferorum parturitiones","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'inferorum parturitiones' (birth-pangs of the underworld) echoes patristic imagery of Christ's harrowing of hell, a common theme in early Christian soteriology, especially in Latin writers like Tertullian and Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Audi eum ante tot annorum millia","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from direct theological argument to a scriptural exemplum from Job, using a rhetorical 'hear him' to introduce a divine speech that reinforces the omnipresence of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tiam apud inferos non fuissc","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'tiam apud inferos non fuissc' appears corrupt; the intended reading is likely 'etiam apud inferos non fuisse' (was not even among the dead), consistent with the context of Christ's descent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'tiam apud inferos non fuissc' is textually corrupt; the reading adopted is 'etiam apud inferos non fuisse'.","The citation 'Ps.' at the end is incomplete; the psalm reference is not given, but the context suggests a paraphrase of Psalm 139 (138 LXX)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"CXXXVIII, 7, 8). Hoc omnino testificans nc demonstrans, Deum cujus majestate plena sunt omnia, quodam incomprehensibili utique et inexplicabili modo etiam inferis interesse. Si autem, quod magis probabile est, in his quæ de eo tanto ante in prophetia praedicta sunt, et impleta Filii Dei vox est, quoniam per ipsum facta sunt omnia, et sine ipso factum est nihil (Joan. I, 3): ipse in homine est visitare inferorum dignatus obstrusa, et prepositos mortis præsentia invictæ majestatis exterruit, et propter liberandos quos voluit, inferorum portas reserari præcepit.\n\nV. De ipso siquidem Joannes apostolus in Apoca. lypsi sic loquitur: Posuit manum dexteram super me dicens: Noli timere: ego sum primus et novissinus; et vivens, qui fueram mortuus; et ecce sum vivens in specula sæculorum: et habeo clavem mortis et inferorum (Apoc. I, 17, 18). Propter deitatem quippe primus, quoniam principium est quod et loquitur nobis (Joan. VIII, 25): propter humanitatem vero novissimus, quia suscipere crucem non dedignatus est et mortem pro nobis. Et ideo cui in Divinitate nub sunt omnia creaturarum, etiam in homine suscepto habet claves mortis et inferorum. Tantum igitur abest, Deum Dei Filium, incommutabilem atque incomprehensibitem, ab inferis potuisse concludi; ut nec ipsam assumptionis animam credamus, aut exitiabiliter susceptam, aut tenacitcr derelictam.","english":"CXXXVIII, 7, 8). This altogether testifies and demonstrates that God, with whose majesty all things are filled, in some incomprehensible and indeed inexpressible manner is also present among the dead. But if, which is more probable, in these things which were so long before predicted in prophecy concerning him and fulfilled, it is the voice of the Son of God, since through him all things were made, and without him nothing was made (John 1:3): he himself in the man deigned to visit the hidden places of the dead, and by the presence of his unconquered majesty terrified the rulers of death, and for the sake of those he wished to free, commanded the gates of the dead to be unbarred.\n\nV. Concerning this indeed the apostle John speaks thus in the Apocalypse: He placed his right hand upon me, saying: Do not fear; I am the first and the last; and living, I who had been dead; and behold I am living on the watch of the ages; and I hold the key of death and of the dead (Apoc. 1:17, 18). On account of the divinity indeed he is the first, because he is the beginning which also speaks to us (John 8:25); on account of the humanity indeed the last, because he did not disdain to undergo the cross and death for us. And therefore he to whom in his Divinity nothing of the creatures is closed, also in the man he assumed holds the keys of death and of the dead. So far then is it from being possible that God the Son of God, immutable and incomprehensible, could be confined among the dead, that we do not believe even the soul of the assumption itself was either fatally taken up or tenaciously abandoned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. I, 3","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. I, 3' refers to John 1:3, 'through him all things were made, and without him nothing was made', a paraphrase of the Vulgate 'omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Apoc. I, 17, 18","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Apoc. I, 17, 18' refers to Revelation 1:17-18, where Christ declares 'I am the first and the last' and 'I hold the key of death and of the dead', a non-literal rendering of the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. VIII, 25","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. VIII, 25' refers to John 8:25, where Christ says 'the beginning' (principium), used here to support the claim that Christ is 'first' by divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"inferis","severity":"info","text":"'inferis' (dative/ablative plural of inferi) means 'the dead' or 'the underworld', rendered here as 'among the dead' and 'gates of the dead', reflecting the Latin sense of the realm of the dead.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"assumptionis animam","severity":"info","text":"'assumptionis animam' refers to the soul of the assumed humanity (the human nature Christ assumed), a technical term in Christological debates about the integrity of Christ's human soul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"CXXXVIII, 7, 8","severity":"info","text":"The opening 'CXXXVIII, 7, 8' likely refers to a numbered section or letter in the manuscript tradition, possibly a reference to a collection of Capreolus's letters or a patristic florilegium.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'CXXXVIII, 7, 8' is ambiguous: it may denote a letter number, a chapter and verse, or a manuscript folio reference; the reading taken is as a section marker.","The source of the Apocalypse quotation is given as 'Apoc. I, 17, 18' but the text does not match the Vulgate exactly; the reading taken is that Capreolus paraphrases or uses a variant text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Sed nec carnem ejus credimus contagionc alicujus corruptionis infectam. Ipsius namque vox est in psalmo, sicut Petrus interpretatur apostolus: Non derelinques animam meam apud inferos, neque:anetum tuum videre corruptionem (Psal. xv, 40; Act. n, 27). Ipse propter culpam nostram factus est velut homo sine adjutorio (Psal. LXXXVII. 5): propter innocentiam vcro ac potentiam suam inventus est inter mortuos liber. Tunc enim vere quæ non rapuerat, sicut scriptum est (Ps. LXVIII, 5) exsolvebat. Non itaque mirum, si Deum locus aliquis recipit, nec tamen capit: præsentiam sentit, majestatem non impedit: expavescit omnipotentiam, substantiam non includit. Siquidem illa sunima et perfecta beatitudo ei inexstinguibilis lucis [forte lux], nec obscurari tenebris, nec variari locis, nec passionibus affici, nec conditionibus minui, nec temporibus valeat commutari. Dens ergo filium proprium homit em rec in inferis deseruit, nec apud inferos dereli qut. Cujus autem virtute ac majestate antiqua santi rum corpora visa sunt resurrexisse (Matth. XlVII, i i, 52), si Deus inferos minime visitavit? Quis ille cst qui petras scindi, terram commoveri, solem obscurari, diem fugere, velum templi in duas dividi partes effecit? Nunquid homo tantum? nonne etiam Deus? Ergo ei nec in cruce, nec in morte, nec in sepulcro, nec in inferis defuit.","english":"But we do not believe that his flesh was infected by any contagion of corruption. For his own voice is in the psalm, as the apostle Peter interprets: \"You will not leave my soul among the dead, nor allow your holy one to see corruption\" (Ps. 15:40; Acts 2:27). He himself, because of our fault, became like a man without help (Ps. 87:5): on account of his innocence and his power, he was found free among the dead. For then truly, as it is written (Ps. 68:5), he was paying what he had not taken. It is not therefore surprising if some place receives God, yet does not contain him: it perceives his presence, does not impede his majesty: it stands in awe of his omnipotence, does not enclose his substance. For that supreme and perfect blessedness and inextinguishable light [or light] can neither be darkened by shadows, nor varied by places, nor affected by passions, nor diminished by conditions, nor changed by times. Therefore God did not abandon his own son, a man, among the dead, nor did he leave him among the dead. By whose power and majesty, then, were the bodies of the ancient saints seen to have risen (Matt. 27:11, 52), if God never visited the underworld? Who is it that caused rocks to be split, the earth to be shaken, the sun to be darkened, the day to flee, the temple veil to be torn into two parts? Was it only a man? Was it not also God? Therefore he was absent from him neither on the cross, nor in death, nor in the tomb, nor among the dead.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. xv, 40; Act. n, 27","severity":"info","text":"The citation conflates Ps 15:40 (Vulgate) with Acts 2:27, where Peter quotes Ps 15:40. The Latin 'non derelinques animam meam apud inferos' adapts the psalm's wording to the resurrection context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ps. LXXXVII. 5","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 87:5 (Vulgate) is cited as 'velut homo sine adjutorio'. The verse describes the speaker's helplessness, here applied to Christ's human condition due to human fault.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ps. LXVIII, 5","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 68:5 (Vulgate) is cited: 'quæ non rapuerat, sicut scriptum est, exsolvebat'. The phrase 'paying what he had not taken' is interpreted as Christ's voluntary suffering for sins not his own.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XlVII, i i, 52","severity":"info","text":"Matthew 27:11, 52 (Vulgate) is cited for the resurrection of ancient saints' bodies at Christ's death. The reference supports the argument that God visited the underworld.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"contagionc","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'contagionc' is a scribal error for 'contagione' (ablative of 'contagio'). The sense is 'by any contagion of corruption', denying physical decay of Christ's flesh.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"inexstinguibilis lucis [forte lux]","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'inexstinguibilis lucis' is marked with '[forte lux]' in the edition, indicating a textual variant. The sense is 'inextinguishable light', but the case may be corrupt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'inexstinguibilis lucis' may be a genitive or a nominative; the edition notes 'forte lux' suggesting a possible emendation to nominative.","The citation 'Psal. xv, 40' in the Latin corresponds to Psalm 15:40 in the Vulgate, but modern numbering differs; the reference is to Psalm 16:10 in the Hebrew numbering."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Nec aliter, aut de alio solet intelligi quod in psalmo dictum est: Auferte portas, principes, vestras, et elevamini, portæ æternales, et introibit rex gloriæ (Psal. XXIII, 7). Unde expavescentibus atque interrogantibus, Quis est iste rex glorice (Ibid., 8)? respondetur, Dominus fortis et potens, Dominus potens in proelio (Ib.). Quo prælio? nisi in quo u ortem morte calcavit, peccatum innoceDI occisua ex tinxit, et tropæum victoriæ de diabolo et angelis ejus reportavit.\n\nVI. At cn;m ipse in cruce dixit: Deus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti (Psal. XXI, 2)? Sed ista suscepti hominis vox ct. Attende unde assumpta est, et illic vide qui sequitur: Longe, inquit, a salute mea verba delictorum (Ibid.). Similis est hæc vox etiam illi qua dicitur: Tristis est enima mea usque ad mortem (Matth. xxvi, 38). Nonne paulo ante ipse discipulis dixerat: In hoc contristati estis, quoniam duri, Eo ad Patrem meum, et jam non videbitis me (Joan. XVI, 6); et, Si diligeretis me, gauderetis quia eo ad Patrem, quia Pater major me est (Joan. xiv, 28). In quo ergo jubet gaudere discipulos suos? Qualiter creditur cor.tristari magister, nisI ut in homine veri hominis passiones et fluctuationes ostenderet? Qui enim propter nos redimendos, instituendos, confirmandosque venerat, omnia in se inlirmitatis nostræ genera sustii ebat.","english":"Nor is it otherwise, or concerning another, that what is said in the psalm is usually understood: \"Take away your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, O eternal gates, and the king of glory will enter\" (Ps. 23:7). Whence, as they are terrified and ask, \"Who is this king of glory?\" (Ps. 23:8), the answer is given: \"The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle\" (ibid.). What battle? If not that in which he trampled death by death, extinguished sin by the slaughter of the innocent, and bore back the trophy of victory from the devil and his angels.\n\nVI. But when he himself said on the cross: \"God, my God, why have you forsaken me?\" (Ps. 21:2). But this is the voice of the assumed man. Pay attention to whence it is taken, and there see what follows: \"Far from my salvation,\" he says, \"are the words of my transgressions\" (ibid.). This voice is also similar to that which says: \"My soul is sad unto death\" (Matt. 26:38). Did he not himself say shortly before to the disciples: \"You are saddened because I am going to my Father, and you will no longer see me\" (John 16:6); and, \"If you loved me, you would rejoice because I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I\" (John 14:28). In what, then, does he bid his disciples to rejoice? How is it believed that the master is saddened, unless to show in the man the passions and fluctuations of a true man? For he who had come to redeem, instruct, and confirm us, endured in himself all kinds of our infirmity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Auferte portas, principes, vestras, et elevamini, portæ æternales, et introibit rex gloriæ","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus cites Ps. 23:7 (LXX) as a prophecy of Christ's triumphal entry, a common patristic typology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Ps. 21:2 (LXX) is the cry of abandonment on the cross, interpreted here as the voice of the assumed human nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"suscepti hominis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'suscepti hominis' (the assumed man) is a technical term in Christology for Christ's human nature, distinct from his divine person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"tropæum victoriæ de diabolo et angelis ejus","severity":"info","text":"The image of Christ's victory trophy over the devil and his angels reflects early Christian exegesis of the cross as cosmic triumph, common in Latin fathers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VI. At cum ipse in cruce dixit","severity":"info","text":"The section marker 'VI' indicates a new argumentative unit, addressing the objection from Christ's cry of abandonment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus parallels Christ's psalm cry with Matt. 26:38, showing both express human sorrow, which he interprets as pedagogical for the disciples.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'u ortem morte' in the first paragraph is a scribal error for 'mortem morte' (death by death), corrected in the English draft."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Non enim habemus sacerdotem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris (Hebr. iv, 15): etenim, sicut Apostolus ait, Expertus est omnia secundum similitudinem sine peccato. Similis huic est etiam illa vox: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste: verum non quod ego volo, sed quod tu vis (Motth. XXVI, 39). Nonne in hoc venerat, ut pro nobis hunc calicem biberet, et venenum a serpente propinatum tali antidoto salutis expelleret? Nonnc potestatem habebat ponendi animam suam, et potestatem habebat iterum sumen'i oam (Joan. x, 18)? Nonne ipse dixerat: Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego a me ipso pono eam (Ibid.)? Et tamen nunc velut dubitans loquitur et recusans: ut et illic divi: a poteslas appareat, et hic se conditio humana cognoscat. Nonne hoc mysterium ante tempora aeterna in Deo fuisse absconditum clamat Apostolus (Col. i, 26)? Num vero velut repentinum aliquid Christus expavit, quod certo tempore faciendum in aeternitate cum Patre disposuit? Hæc ergo et talia cum dicuntur aut liunt, sicut sæpe dicturn est, veram hominis infirmitatem fragilitatemque demonstrant, nec ideo praesentiam divinae majestatis evacuant.","english":"For we do not have a priest who cannot suffer with our infirmities (Heb. 4:15): for, as the Apostle says, He experienced all things according to the likeness without sin. Similar to this is also that saying: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: but not what I will, but what you will (Matt. 26:39). Did he not come for this, that he might drink this cup for us, and expel the poison proffered by the serpent with such an antidote of salvation? Did he not have the power to lay down his life, and the power to take it up again (John 10:18)? Had he not himself said: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself (Ibid.)? And yet now he speaks as if doubting and refusing: so that there the divine power may appear, and here the human condition may recognize itself. Is this not the mystery which the Apostle proclaims was hidden in God before eternal times (Col. 1:26)? Or did Christ, as if something sudden, dread what he had arranged with the Father in eternity to be done at a certain time? These things, therefore, and suchlike, when they are said or done, as has often been said, demonstrate true human infirmity and frailty, and do not thereby evacuate the presence of divine majesty.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. iv, 15","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Hebr. iv, 15' is a Vulgate reference to Hebrews 4:15, which in modern Bibles is Hebrews 4:15, but the quoted phrase 'non enim habemus sacerdotem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris' is not found verbatim in that verse; it may be a paraphrase or a conflation with Hebrews 5:2.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Motth. XXVI, 39","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Motth. XXVI, 39' refers to Matthew 26:39, where Jesus prays in Gethsemane. The Latin text quotes 'Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste' (Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me), which is a paraphrase of the Vulgate's 'Pater mi, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. x, 18","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. x, 18' refers to John 10:18, but the quoted phrase 'Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego a me ipso pono eam' (No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself) is not found in John 10:18; it may be a conflation with John 10:15-18 or a misattribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Col. i, 26","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Col. i, 26' refers to Colossians 1:26, which in the Vulgate reads 'mysterium absconditum a saeculis' (the mystery hidden from ages). The text here says 'ante tempora aeterna in Deo fuisse absconditum' (hidden in God before eternal times), closely echoing the Pauline phrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"venenum a serpente propinatum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'venenum a serpente propinatum' (poison proffered by the serpent) alludes to the serpent of Genesis 3, which introduced sin and death into the world. Christ's cup is an antidote (antidoto salutis) that expels this poison, a typological interpretation common in patristic soteriology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage employs a series of rhetorical questions (Nonne...? Nonne...? Nonne...?) to argue that Christ's human hesitation in Gethsemane does not negate his divine power, a common anti-docetic strategy in Latin Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture citations (Hebr. iv, 15; Joan. x, 18) do not match the quoted text exactly, suggesting either a loose paraphrase or a variant Vulgate tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"VII. Hic homo quisquis es, qui putas Deum Christum ab homine Christo passionis tempore separatum, non recordaris eum passuris discipulis suam praesentiam fideliter pollicentem, qui dieit: Cum vos tradiderint, nolite cogitare quomodo aut quid loquamini; dabitur enim vobis in illa hora quid loquamini. Non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus Patris vestri qui loquitur in vobis (Matth. X, 19, 20). Itane ille qui servis facientibus Domini voluntatem suam divinam presentiam promisit, donavit. exhibuit; in quo nullo existente peccato, pro nostrasalute mortem subiil innoxiam, ut Patris faceret voluntatem, divinum auxi lium sibi carnis tempore denegavit? Et Deus hominem quem ob hæc sustinen!a nulla compulsus necessitate suscepit, in hac perfunctione destituit? Loquitur inter tormenta martyrum præsens, nec eos aliquid meditari permittit, et se ipsum in crucis patibulo dereliquit? Ipse est enim, quod sepe ac semper et repetendum: nec distingui potest Dei hominisque per sona, quamvis sit in eo diversa substantia. Absit aliud credere, absit aliter de omnipotente sentire. Nec nasci æternus, nec crescere perfectus, nec impassibilis pati, nec immortalis mori, sine ulla sui mutatione vel corruptione, sicut jam dictum est, formidavit. Sed quia hæc pati non posset sola Divinitas, hominem per quem tanti muneris mysterio perfungeretur, accepit.","english":"VII. Whoever you are, O man, who think that the God Christ was separated from the man Christ at the time of the Passion, you do not recall Him faithfully promising His presence to His disciples who were about to suffer, when He says: “When they have delivered you up, do not think about how or what you should say; for at that hour it will be given to you what you should say. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (Matt. 10:19-20). Did He, who promised, granted, and exhibited His divine presence to servants doing the Lord’s will—in whom, with no sin existing, He underwent an innocent death for our salvation, in order to do the Father’s will—deny divine assistance to Himself during the time of the flesh? And did God abandon the man whom He assumed, compelled by no necessity, for the sake of these sufferings, in the very performance of them? He is present speaking among the torments of the martyrs, and does not permit them to meditate on anything else, and did He abandon Himself on the gibbet of the cross? For He is the same—and this must be said often and always—and the person of God and of man cannot be distinguished, although in Him there is a diverse substance. Far be it from us to believe otherwise, far be it from us to think otherwise concerning the Almighty. He did not fear to be born, though eternal; to grow, though perfect; to suffer, though impassible; to die, though immortal, without any change or corruption in Himself, as has already been said. But because the Divinity alone could not undergo these things, He took on a man through whom He would carry out the mystery of so great a gift.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. X, 19, 20","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Matt. 10:19-20 is adapted; the Vulgate reads 'nolite cogitare quomodo aut quid loquamini' but the standard text differs slightly. Capreolus uses a free rendering to emphasize divine presence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"diversa substantia","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'diversa substantia' distinguishes the divine and human natures in Christ without separating the person, reflecting anti-Nestorian Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus counters a view that God Christ was separated from man Christ at the Passion, likely a response to Nestorian or Adoptionist ideas circulating in 5th-century North Africa.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage forms the climax of the letter's argument, using rhetorical questions and a series of paradoxes (e.g., 'nascere aeternus') to assert the unity of Christ's person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter was preserved in the Collectio Hispana and later used in medieval Christological debates, cited by authors like Bede and Thomas Aquinas.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'spiritus Patris vestri' in the Matt. citation may reflect a variant reading or Capreolus's own paraphrase; the Vulgate has 'spiritus Patris mei'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Nam et in coelum receptus, illuc eum levavit unde nunquam ipse discessit. Audiamns Apostolum prædicat tem Christum crucifixum, Judæis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam: ipsis vero vocatis Judæis et Græcis, eumdem ipsum Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam (1 Cor. i, 23, i4). Ad. vertite, lilii dilectissimi, etquod jam nostis agnoscite; ipsum Cbristum, qui propter humilitatem suscep i hominis Judceisdicitur fuisse scandalum, gentibus autem stultitia, ipsum esse Dei virtutem et Dei sapieotiam. Nunquid vel hic separata aut discreta est ali Apostolo divinitatis humanitatisque persona? aut Prubuit eamdem dicere Dei sapientiam, quam factam dixerat gentium stultitiam? aut eumdem asserere Dei virtutem, quem scandalum dixerat Judæorum? Quid ergo nos erubescimus conteri Denm propter hominem atque in homine natum et passum; cum non negamus donante Deo factum eumdem ipsum bominem Deum? Quod utique per divinam gratiam, non per humanam substantiam accepisse cognoscitur.","english":"For even when received into heaven, He raised Him there, whence He Himself never departed. Let us hear the Apostle proclaiming Christ crucified—a scandal to the Jews, indeed, and folly to the Gentiles, but to those same called Jews and Greeks, that same Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). Pay attention, most beloved children, and recognize what you already know: that same Christ, who on account of the humility of the man He assumed is said to have been a scandal to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles, is Himself the power of God and the wisdom of God. Was the person of the divinity and the humanity here separated or distinguished by the Apostle? Or did He shrink from calling the same being the wisdom of God, whom He had called the folly of the Gentiles? Or from asserting the same being the power of God, whom He had called the scandal of the Jews? Why, then, do we blush to confess God born and suffered on account of man and in man, when we do not deny that, by the gift of God, that same man became God? Which, of course, He is known to have received through divine grace, not through human substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"1 Cor. i, 23, i4","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites 1 Cor. 1:23 and 1:24, but the verse numbers are misaligned: 1:23 refers to 'scandalum' and 'stultitiam', while 1:24 refers to 'Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"persona","severity":"info","text":"The term 'persona' here denotes the grammatical or theological 'person' (i.e., the distinct subject) of divinity and humanity, a key concept in Christological debates about the unity of Christ's two natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"scandalum ... stultitia","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus echoes a common patristic topos: the paradox that Christ crucified is a scandal to Jews and folly to Gentiles (cf. Acts 17:18, Justin Martyr), yet is the power and wisdom of God for believers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunquid ... aut ... aut","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a series of rhetorical questions (Nunquid ... aut ... aut) to refute any separation of Christ's divine and human persons, a common argumentative device in anti-Nestorian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"donante Deo ... per divinam gratiam","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus emphasizes that Christ's becoming God (theosis) is by divine grace, not human nature, reflecting the orthodox Chalcedonian position against Nestorian and Pelagian tendencies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'eumdem ipsum hominem Deum' could be read as 'that same man God' (predicative) or 'that same man, God' (appositional); the translation opts for the former, emphasizing the identity of the man and God."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"VIII. Adhuc paulo infra subsequitur: Ex ipso autem vos estis in Christo Jesu, qui factus est nobis a Dto sapientia et justitia et sanctificatio et redemptio: ut quemadmodum scriptum est: Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur (Ibid., 50, 31). Certe Christos Jesns hominis tantum ncmon cst, ait hæreticus. Sed Paulus, qui sciebat et dixerat non esse in homine gloriandum, Christum Jesum non tantum hominem, sed Deum quoque cognoverat; quem sapientiam et justitiam et sanctificationem et redemptionem nobis a Deo factum esse credebat; et in eo credentes gloriari docebat: quoniam Christus Jesus et homo et Deus est. Et ad haec consequenter non elatione verbi aut sapientiae, mysterium Dei annuntians addit et dicit: Nihil me judicavi scire in vobis, nisi Jesum Christum, et hunc crucifixum (I Cor. II, 2). Ac ne Judxorum iniquus populus parvum se asserat admisisse peccatum, si se intelligat nudum tantum hominem persecutum; mysterium in Dei sapientia dicit absconditum, nulli principum hujus saeculi revelatum testificans (Ibid.7). Quod si cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriæ crucifixissent (Ibid. 8) Ecce et hic Christum Jesum quem Dominum gluriæ confitetur, ipsum prædicare non metuit sæculi principibus crucifixum.","english":"VIII. A little further on he continues: \"But you are in Christ Jesus, who has been made for us by God wisdom and justice and sanctification and redemption: so that, as it is written: 'He who glories, let him glory in the Lord' (Ibid., 50, 31).\" Certainly, the heretic says, Christ Jesus is the name of a man only. But Paul, who knew and had said that one must not glory in a man, had recognized Christ Jesus not only as man, but also as God; he believed that He had been made wisdom and justice and sanctification and redemption for us by God; and he taught that believers should glory in Him: because Christ Jesus is both man and God. And to these things, consequently, not out of pride of word or wisdom, announcing the mystery of God, he adds and says: \"I judged that I knew nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified\" (1 Cor. 2:2). And lest the wicked people of the Jews claim that they have committed only a small sin if they understand that they persecuted merely a man, he says that the mystery is hidden in the wisdom of God, testifying that it was revealed to none of the princes of this world (Ibid. 7). For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory (Ibid. 8). Behold, here too, he who confesses Christ Jesus as the Lord of glory does not fear to proclaim Him crucified to the princes of the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus cites 1 Cor. 10:31 (Vulgate numbering) as a scriptural warrant for glorying only in the Lord, not in a mere man.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nihil me judicavi scire in vobis, nisi Jesum Christum, et hunc crucifixum","severity":"info","text":"The quotation is from 1 Cor. 2:2, where Paul emphasizes his exclusive knowledge of Christ crucified, a key anti-heretical proof-text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"mysterium in Dei sapientia dicit absconditum, nulli principum hujus saeculi revelatum","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus paraphrases 1 Cor. 2:7-8, asserting that the mystery of the cross was hidden from the rulers of this age.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominum gloriæ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Lord of glory' (Dominum gloriæ) echoes 1 Cor. 2:8 and is a standard anti-heretical title affirming Christ's divinity against those who saw Him as mere man.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"hæreticus","severity":"info","text":"The unnamed heretic likely refers to an adoptionist or Arian opponent who denied Christ's divinity, a common polemical target in 5th-century North African letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Adhuc paulo infra subsequitur","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a continuous exegesis of 1 Corinthians, showing Capreolus's method of sequential scriptural commentary within a letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'Ibid., 50, 31' in the English draft is unclear; it may refer to a non-standard versification of 1 Corinthians."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Omnem hujus lectionis continentiam consideretis exhortor; et videbitis quanto molimfne atque conatu, sanctus Apostolus hominum mentes a terrenæ tantum intelligentiae vilitate ad divina in hoc mysterio et coelestia consideranda sustollat. Breviter enim cuncta transeo, quæ ipsi plenius et latius poteritis advertere. Nam et ad Corinthios secunda (v, 13, 14) quodam loco sic loquitur: Sive, inquit, mente excessimus, Deo; sive temperantes sumus, vobis: caritas enim compellit nos: judicantes hoc, quoniam unus pro omnibus mortuus est. Et paulo post: Omnia, inquit, ex Deo, qui reconciliavit nos sibi per Christum: et dedit nobis mysterium reconciliationis, quia Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi (Ibid., 18, 19).\n\nIX. Quaero quemadmodum: non aliter quam nascendo, patiendo, moriendo, resurgendo atque in coelum ascendendo? Quæro etiam quod sit mysterium reconciliationis nostrae? Num aliud quam sacrificium quod per suum sanguinem summus sacerdos obtulit Christus' Videamus ergo utrumnam solus homo perfecerit: quoniam, sicut illi putant, Deus ab eo in passione discessit. Sed huic opinioni Paulus apostolus evidentissime contradicit: Deus, inquit, erat in Christo. Erat in Christo, non discesserat a Christo. Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconciliana sibi. Quemadmodum reconcilians? non reputans illis delicta eorum.","english":"I urge you to consider the entire content of this reading; and you will see with how great an effort and striving the holy Apostle raises the minds of men from the baseness of merely earthly understanding to the contemplation of divine and heavenly things in this mystery. For I pass over briefly all that you yourselves will be able to notice more fully and at greater length. For also in the second letter to the Corinthians (5:13, 14) he speaks in a certain place thus: \"Whether,\" he says, \"we were out of our mind for God, or whether we are temperate for you: for love compels us: judging this, that one died for all.\" And a little later: \"All things,\" he says, \"are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ: and gave us the mystery of reconciliation, because God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself\" (ibid., 18, 19).\n\nIX. I ask in what manner: not otherwise than by being born, suffering, dying, rising again, and ascending into heaven? I also ask what is the mystery of our reconciliation? Is it anything other than the sacrifice which the high priest Christ offered through his own blood? Let us see, therefore, whether a mere man accomplished this: since, as they think, God departed from him in the passion. But the apostle Paul most clearly contradicts this opinion: \"God,\" he says, \"was in Christ.\" He was in Christ, he had not departed from Christ. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. In what manner reconciling? not holding their sins against them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"2 Corinthians 5:13-14; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus cites 2 Cor 5:13-14 and 5:18-19, but the Vulgate numbering differs; modern Bibles place these verses as 5:13-14 and 5:18-19, though the content aligns with Paul's discussion of reconciliation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mysterium reconciliationis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'mysterium reconciliationis' (mystery of reconciliation) is a key theological term in Capreolus's argument, linking Christ's sacrificial death to the Pauline concept of atonement and divine presence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"summus sacerdos","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus calls Christ 'summus sacerdos' (high priest), a title rooted in Hebrews and early Christian typology, emphasizing Christ's role as both sacrifice and officiant in the atonement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quaero ... Quaero etiam","severity":"info","text":"The rhetorical repetition 'Quaero ... Quaero etiam' structures Capreolus's argument, posing two questions about the manner and content of Christ's work, then refuting the heretical view that God abandoned Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus erat in Christo","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus's insistence that 'God was in Christ' during the passion counters adoptionist or subordinationist Christologies, reflecting fifth-century African anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian concerns.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Sive, inquit, mente excessimus, Deo; sive temperantes sumus, vobis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin citation of 2 Cor 5:13 is garbled; the Vulgate reads 'sive mente excidimus, Deo; sive temperantes sumus, vobis' (whether we were out of our mind for God, or temperate for you). The text may be corrupt or a paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of the Pauline citation in the Latin is uncertain; the phrase 'mente excessimus' may be a scribal error for 'mente excidimus'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"An forte hoc stultis placet, ut per hominem tantum fiat remissio peccatorum? Quod cum etiam Judæi respuerent dicendo: Blasphemat: quia potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus (Marc. n, 7) i ipse Dominus, Dei hominisque Filius, volens manifestare incredulis non esse solum hominem quem videbant, sed Deum etiam in quem credere contemnehant, et potestatem divinam homini quoque propter unitatem personæ ejus ac præsentiæ contributam evidenter ostendere: Ut sciatis, ait, quoniam potestatem habet filius hominis super terram dimittere peccata, tunc dixit paralytico: Surge, tolle lectum tuum, et vade in domum tuam (Matth. IX, 6). Ita Deus cl homo, unus et verus animarum corporumque salvator, et exteriorem hominem morbo carnali, et interiorem peccati onere levavit. Deus ergo erat in Christomundum reconcilians sibi: nusquam et nunquam deserens hominem, quem propria dignatione, nulla prorsus necessitate, suscepit.","english":"Or does this please fools, that remission of sins is made only through a man? Since even the Jews rejected this, saying: \"He blasphemes: because who can forgive sins except God alone?\" (Mark 2:7) The Lord Himself, Son of God and of man, wishing to reveal to unbelievers that He was not only the man whom they saw, but also God, in whom they scorned to believe, and to show clearly that divine power was also contributed to the man on account of the unity of His person and presence, said: \"That you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,\" then He said to the paralytic: \"Arise, take up your bed, and go to your home\" (Matthew 9:6). Thus God and man, one and true savior of souls and bodies, lifted both the outer man from carnal disease and the inner man from the burden of sin. Therefore God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself: never and nowhere abandoning the man, whom He assumed by His own condescension, with no necessity whatsoever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Marc. n, 7","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Marc. n, 7' is a non-standard abbreviation for Mark 2:7, which does not correspond to the usual verse numbering; the phrase 'Blasphemat: quia potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus' is not found in the Vulgate at that location.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. IX, 6","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Matthew 9:6 is incorrect; the story of the healing of the paralytic with the command 'Surge, tolle lectum tuum, et vade in domum tuam' appears in Matthew 9:6-7, but the verse division varies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Judæi respuerent","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus attributes to Jews a rejection of human forgiveness of sins, echoing anti-Jewish polemic common in patristic literature, where Jewish leaders are portrayed as denying Christ's divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus cl homo","severity":"info","text":"The abbreviation 'cl' likely stands for 'et' (and), a common scribal contraction; 'Deus et homo' is a standard Christological formula emphasizing the dual nature of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ita Deus cl homo... salvator","severity":"info","text":"This sentence functions as a summary of the preceding argument, asserting Christ as the single savior of both body and soul, linking the healing miracle to spiritual redemption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"nulla prorsus necessitate","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'with no necessity whatsoever' reflects anti-Pelagian emphasis on grace and Christ's free condescension, a theme in Capreolus's context of defending orthodox Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture references 'Marc. n, 7' and 'Matth. IX, 6' are non-standard and may reflect variant versification or scribal error; the exact source of the Jewish objection is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"X. Ad Hebræos quoque idem apostolus in ipsius EpistoLe prima fronte testatur: Postremo, inquit, in his diebus locutus est nobis in Filio, quem constituit hæredem universorum, per quem fecit et sæcula. Qui cum sit splendor glorice, et figura substantiæ ejus, gerens quoque omnia verbo virtutis suæ, purgatione peccatorum a se facta, sedit in dextera majestatis in excelsis (Hebr. I, 2, 3). Ipse ergo Filius Dei et filius hominis, unus est atque idem, qui propter æternitatem cum Patre fecit saecula, propter incommutabilem lucem splendor est gloriæ, propter æqualitatem figura est substantiae, propter majestatem gerit omnia verbo virtutis. Ipse etiam propter suscepti hominis passionem, peccatorum nostrorum fecit purgationem; et propter remunerationem, habet in Patris dextera sessionem. Quomodo autem purgationem fecit peccatorum, nisi delens chirographum, quod adversum nos fuenat (Col. II, 14), diabolo accusante conscriptum? quomodo delevit, nisi cruci affigens, et sanguine innocente diluens? Quod ergo olim Deus locutus est patribus vi prophetis, et postremo est testificatus in Filio (Hebr. i, i, 2), hoc credamus, hoc teneamus, hoc omnihus viribus defendamus. Accedit ad causam, quod tunc principatus et potestates exspoliavit fiducialiter, triumphans eos in semetipso (Col. II, 15). Quod opus non est omnino solius hominis, sed divinæ in homine majestatis.","english":"X. Moreover, the same Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews testifies at the very beginning: Finally, he says, in these days He has spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages. Who, being the splendor of glory and the figure of His substance, also bearing all things by the word of His power, having accomplished the purification of sins from Himself, sat on the right of majesty in the highest (Heb. 1:2, 3). Therefore the Son of God and the son of man is one and the same, who by reason of eternity made the ages with the Father, by reason of immutable light is the splendor of glory, by reason of equality is the figure of substance, by reason of majesty bears all things by the word of power. He also, by reason of the passion of the man He assumed, accomplished the purification of our sins; and by reason of recompense, has His session on the right of the Father. But how did He accomplish the purification of sins, except by destroying the bond that was drawn up against us (Col. 2:14), written with the accuser devil indicting? How did He destroy it, except by affixing to the cross and washing away with innocent blood? Therefore what God once spoke to the fathers through the prophets, and finally testified in the Son (Heb. 1:1, 2), let us believe this, let us hold this, let us defend this with all our strength. It comes to the case that then He despoiled the principalities and powers confidently, triumphing over them in Himself (Col. 2:15). Which work is not at all that of man alone, but of divine majesty in man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. I, 2, 3","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus conflates Hebrews 1:2-3, citing a non-standard Vetus Latina version that differs from the Vulgate. The phrase 'splendor gloriae' is not in the Vulgate but appears in early Latin witnesses.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Col. II, 14-15","severity":"info","text":"The references to Colossians 2:14-15 are not found in the canonical Vulgate; they likely reflect a lost Latin version or a misattribution. The 'chirographum' and 'exspoliavit' echo Pauline themes but are not direct quotations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"chirographum","severity":"info","text":"'Chirographum' (bond) is a legal term for a debt contract. Here it metaphorically represents the record of sins, with the devil as prosecutor. This imagery is common in patristic exegesis of Colossians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"purgatione peccatorum","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus interprets Christ's purification of sins as a forensic act (deleting the bond) and a sacrificial act (washing with blood). This reflects North African anti-Pelagian theology emphasizing grace and Christ's unique role.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"X.","severity":"info","text":"The passage is the tenth section of the letter, marked by a Roman numeral. It continues the argument that Christ's divine and human natures are united, using Hebrews and Colossians as proof texts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. I, 2, 3","severity":"caution","text":"The citation 'Hebr. I, 2, 3' is ambiguous: it may refer to Hebrews 1:2-3, but the quoted text does not match any known version. The Latin may be corrupt or from a non-Vulgate tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture references to Hebrews and Colossians do not correspond to the Vulgate; the exact source text is uncertain.","The phrase 'in ipsius EpistoLe prima fronte' could mean 'at the very beginning of his Epistle' or 'on the first page of that Epistle'."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Neque enim homo fortis et potens, sed Dominuspotens in bello (Psal. XXIII, 8).\n\nXI. Item illic post multa, quibus Apostolus mysterium Novi Testamenti a Veteris figura discrevit, sic ait: Refragans leyi Moysi, sine miseratione moritur in duobus aut tribus testibus: quanto magis videtur deteriore pœna dignux, qui Filium Dei conculcavit, et qui sanguinem Novi Testamenti immundum æstimavit, in quo sanctificatus est, et spiritui gratiæ Dei contumeliam fecit? Novimus enim eum qui dixit: Mihi vindicta, ego retribuam, dicit Dominus (Hebr. x, 28-30). Quaero qualiter possit Deus Dei Filius conculcari. Videtis etiam hic quemadmodum nec dubitet, nec metuat, nec erubescat asserere Dei Filium conculcatum. Sed quoniam si quis sanguinem in quo sanctificatus est, immundum existimat, utique Filium Dei conculcat: ideo non discrevit hominis passionem a Dei majestate, cujus reum vult esse illum, qui pro nihilo existimaverit pro se sanguinem fusum. Non enim Filius Dei conculcatur, nisi in eo quod mortis quam in homino sustinuit, beneficium spernitur. Ipse quoque Salvator ac Dominus fidem remuneraturus interrogat. Videte quid dixerit: Quem me, inquit, dicunt esse filium hominis (Matth. xvi, 13)? Atque cum diversas aliorum opiniones illi suggererent: Vos autem, inquit, quem me dicitis esse (Ibid., 15)? me utique filium hominis.","english":"For neither is it a strong and powerful man, but the Lord is powerful in war (Ps. 23:8).\n\nXI. Likewise, after many things there by which the Apostle distinguished the mystery of the New Testament from the figure of the Old, he speaks thus: \"He who opposes the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses: how much more does he seem worthy of a worse punishment who has trampled upon the Son of God, and who has considered the blood of the New Testament, by which he is sanctified, as unclean, and has done insult to the spirit of the grace of God? For we know him who said: 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord\" (Heb. 10:28-30). I ask how the Son of God can be trampled upon. You see here also how he neither doubts, nor fears, nor blushes to assert that the Son of God has been trampled upon. But since if anyone considers the blood by which he is sanctified as unclean, he certainly tramples upon the Son of God: therefore he did not distinguish the passion of man from the majesty of God, whose guilty party he wishes to be the one who has held as nothing the blood shed for him. For the Son of God is not trampled upon except in that the benefit of the death which he endured in man is spurned. The Savior and Lord himself, about to reward faith, asks. See what he said: \"Whom,\" he says, \"do they say that I, the son of man, am\" (Matt. 16:13)? And when they suggested to him the various opinions of others: \"But you,\" he says, \"whom do you say that I am\" (Ibid., 15)? me, indeed, the son of man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. XXIII, 8","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Dominus potens in bello' is from Psalm 23:8 (LXX), a verse not in the Hebrew numbering; Capreolus uses the Old Latin Psalter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. x, 28-30","severity":"info","text":"The quotation conflates Hebrews 10:28-30, but the phrase 'Mihi vindicta, ego retribuam, dicit Dominus' is not in the Vulgate; it may be a loose citation or a variant Old Latin reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. xvi, 13","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Matthew 16:13-15 is imprecise: the question 'Quem me dicunt esse filium hominis?' does not appear in the canonical text; Capreolus may be paraphrasing or citing a variant tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conculcari","severity":"info","text":"'Conculcari' (trampled upon) is a strong physical metaphor for contempt of Christ's divinity, central to Capreolus's argument against those who dishonor the Eucharist.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sanguinem Novi Testamenti","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'blood of the New Testament' refers to the Eucharistic wine, which Capreolus defends as sanctifying; this reflects 5th-century debates on the real presence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XI. Item illic post multa","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues a series of scriptural proofs (XI) after a previous section (X), showing Capreolus's method of linking Old and New Testament citations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of the Hebrews and Matthew citations is uncertain; Capreolus may be quoting from memory or from a non-Vulgate Latin version."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Ad hæc Petrus, ab eodem inspiratus, et in hac confessione ad rectam fidem formasui universis gentibus profuturus, adverte quanta et quam plena integritate rcsponderit: Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi (Matth. XVI, 16). Tu tu, o ille, qui te filium hominis ilicis, tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi. Nunquid non etiam hic, sive interrogatione Domini seu in responsione apostoli, ntriusque substantiæ una monstratur ostenditurque persona; dum et ille se bominis filium, quod in aperto videbatur, edicit, et Petrus eum Christum Dei Filium, quod in occullo gerebatur, donata sibi conlessione monstravit? Unde laudatus a Domino ct beatus est dictus (Ibid.. i7); quoniam non ei caro et sanguis revelaverit, sed Pater qui in coelis est. Quod ergo credere debeamus, Deus Pater per Deum Filium revelet, non caro et sanguis insinuet.\n\nXII. Post resurrectionem quoque, cum Dominum Maria minime cognovisset, et ille proprio nomine appellaudo. viam illi recognitionis aperiret, ac se tangere volentem ne faceret prohiberet; quid ei nuntiandum discipulisdelegare dignatus fuerit, audiamus. Vade, inquit, ad fratres meos, et die eis: Ascendo ad Patrem meum et patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum et ad Deum vestrum (Joan. xx, 17). Age nunc, eligat hæreticus utrum putat, et cujus voce a malit hanc esse, ipse discernat: utraque parte acuto spiritali gladio ferietur.","english":"To this, Peter, inspired by the same Spirit, and in this confession destined to be of benefit to all nations for right faith, observe with what great and full integrity he replied: \"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God\" (Matt. 16:16). \"You, you,\" O that one, \"who call yourself the son of man, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.\" Is it not also here, whether in the Lord's question or in the apostle's response, that one person of both natures is shown and demonstrated? While he declares himself the son of man, which was seen openly, and Peter shows him to be the Christ, the Son of God, which was hidden, by the confession granted to him? Hence he was praised by the Lord and called blessed (ibid., 17); because it was not flesh and blood that revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven. Therefore, what we ought to believe, God the Father reveals through God the Son, not what flesh and blood insinuates.\n\nXII. Also after the resurrection, when Mary had not recognized the Lord at all, and he, calling her by her own name, opened the way of recognition for her, and prevented her from touching him when she wished to do so; let us hear what he deigned to entrust to her to announce to the disciples. \"Go,\" he says, \"to my brothers, and tell them: I am ascending to my Father and your Father; to my God and to your God\" (John 20:17). Come now, let the heretic choose whichever he thinks, and let him discern by whose voice this is spoken; on either side he will be struck by the sharp spiritual sword.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XVI, 16","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus cites Matthew 16:16, but the Vulgate reads 'Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi' at Matthew 16:16, while modern editions place Peter's confession at 16:16-17.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. xx, 17","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Ascendo ad Patrem meum et patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum et ad Deum vestrum' is not found in the Vulgate of John 20:17; it may be a conflation or a variant reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus writes against heretics (likely Arians or Nestorians) who deny the unity of Christ's two natures in one person, as seen in the anti-heretical polemic of sections XI-XII.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two sections (XI and XII), each presenting a scriptural proof for the unity of Christ's person: Peter's confession and the post-resurrection command to Mary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus's use of 'spiritali gladio' (spiritual sword) echoes patristic exegesis, possibly from Augustine or Jerome, where Scripture is a two-edged sword against heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"rcsponderit","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'rcsponderit' is a scribal error for 'responderit'; the text is otherwise sound but requires emendation for clarity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation of John 20:17 is not verbatim from the Vulgate; the source of the variant is unclear.","The identity of 'Maria' (Mary) is ambiguous: Mary Magdalene is implied by context, but not named explicitly."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Ascendo, inquit, ad Patrem meum et ad patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum, et ad Deum vestrum. Si hominis vox est, ergo Filius Dei est homo ille: ad Patrem meum, dixit, ascendo. Si Dei vox est, e go homo est Deus ille: ad Deum meum enim dixit, ascendo. Ncc enim ait, Ascendo ad Patrem meum, et Deum hominis mei: aut, Ascendo ad Deummeum,ct ad Patrem Dei loci. Qui igitur personam divinitatis humanitatisque discernit, utroque intellectu convincitur. Aut homo dixit, et idem ipse est Dei Filius: aut Deus dixit, et idein ipse est etiam homo susceptus. Qui enim dicit, Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad Deum meum; repetendo meum et meum, unam probat polliceturque personam, quamvis distinguat utramque substantiam. Q;od enim ait, Ascendo ad Patrem meum, pertinere quidem videtur ad unigenitum Filium: quod autem ait, ad Deum meum, pertinere videtur ad hominem factum. Sed in Christo Jesu nec homo creatus potest dici, nec unigenitus Deus negari homo poterit natus. Atque ideo nec Dei tanturn, nec hominis tantum, vox ista esse convincitur: quam Deus et homo, uuus atque unicus ipse filius, ad suos discipulos perferendam inseparabili omnino atque indivisibili mandavit affectu.","english":"I ascend,\" he says, \"to my Father and to your Father; to my God and to your God.\" If this is the voice of a man, then that man is the Son of God: he said, \"I ascend to my Father.\" If it is the voice of God, then that God is a man: for he said, \"I ascend to my God.\" For he did not say, \"I ascend to my Father and to the God of my man,\" or, \"I ascend to my God and to the Father of the place of God.\" Therefore, whoever distinguishes the person of divinity and humanity is refuted by both understandings. Either a man spoke, and that same man is the Son of God; or God spoke, and that same God is also the man who was assumed. For he who says, \"I ascend to my Father and to my God,\" by repeating \"my\" and \"my,\" proves and promises one person, although he distinguishes each substance. For what he says, \"I ascend to my Father,\" indeed seems to pertain to the only-begotten Son; but what he says, \"to my God,\" seems to pertain to the man who was made. But in Christ Jesus, neither can the created man be said, nor can the only-begotten God be denied to have been born a man. And therefore this voice is proven to be neither of God alone nor of man alone: which voice God and man, one and the only Son himself, entrusted to his disciples to be conveyed with altogether inseparable and indivisible affection.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ascendo, inquit, ad Patrem meum et ad patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum, et ad Deum vestrum","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus attributes to Christ a saying not found verbatim in the Gospels, combining the language of John 20:17 with a distinction between 'my Father' and 'your Father' and 'my God' and 'your God'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ad Patrem meum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes John 20:17, where Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, 'Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father' (noli me tangere, nondum ascendi ad Patrem meum).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"personam divinitatis humanitatisque","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus uses 'persona' to denote the single subject of Christ, while 'substantia' distinguishes the two natures, reflecting the Latin theological vocabulary of the early fifth-century Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"unigenitus Filius","severity":"info","text":"The term 'only-begotten Son' (unigenitus Filius) is a standard Nicene designation for Christ, emphasizing his unique divine filiation against Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui enim dicit... repetendo meum et meum","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus structures his argument as a dilemma: if the speaker is man, he is Son of God; if God, he is man. The repetition of 'meum' is taken as proof of one person in two substances.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Capreolus Carthaginensis","severity":"info","text":"This letter, part of the African anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian corpus, was cited in the Council of Ephesus (431) and later by Leo the Great, showing its authority in Christological definition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the saying 'Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum, et ad Deum vestrum' is not a direct Gospel quotation; Capreolus may be paraphrasing or constructing a composite logion.","The phrase 'homo creatus' (created man) is ambiguous: it could mean 'the man who was created' (i.e., human nature) or 'the man who was made' (i.e., the incarnate Christ as man)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Denique ut noverilis, et plenius advertatis ita esse quod dicitur, ad dissolvenda omnium hæreticorum macbinamenta et universas calumnias refellendas; ubi opus fuit naturam creatoris a creatura discernere, videte qualiter pro nobis pietas divina vigilavit. Vade, inquit, ad fratres meos, et die eis: Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad Patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum et ad Deum vestrum: Ecce bic evidenter ipsius Domini, id est Dei et hominis, a famulorum suorum persona distinguitur, et a natura vocatio separatur. Quamvis enim id quod mandatur, jam amicis mandetur et fratribus: ostenditur tamen quid Domino debeatur, quid servis cæteris tribuatur. Potuit namque dicere, Ascendo ad Patrem nostrum, et ad Deum nostrum; quia multum distat inter dominationem et conditionem, inter generationem et adoptionem, inter substantiam et gratiam. Ideoqae hic non permixte nec passim dicitur, Ascendo ad Patrem nostrum et ad Deum nostrum: sed ad Patrem meum et patrem vestrum, ad Deum meum et ad Deum vestrum. Aliter enim illi Deus pater est, aliter nobis. IMum siquidem natura co;cquat, misericordia humiliat: nos vero natura prosternit, misericordia erigit. Hoc enim egit ista divina humanitas et humana divinitas, tali ac tanto miraculo, ut bujusmodi gratiam indigna mortalium meruisset iufirmitas.","english":"Finally, so that you may know and more fully understand that what is said is so, to dismantle all the machinations of heretics and refute every calumny, see how divine piety watched over us where it was necessary to distinguish the nature of the creator from that of the creature. \"Go,\" he says, \"to my brothers, and tell them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father; to my God and to your God.\" Behold, here the person of the Lord himself, that is, of God and man, is clearly distinguished from the person of his servants, and the calling is separated from nature. For although what is commanded is already commanded to friends and brothers, it is nevertheless shown what is owed to the Lord, what is granted to the rest of the servants. For he could have said, \"I ascend to our Father and to our God,\" because there is a great distance between dominion and condition, between generation and adoption, between substance and grace. And therefore here it is not said indiscriminately or casually, \"I ascend to our Father and to our God,\" but \"to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.\" For God is father to him in one way, to us in another. For nature equalizes him, mercy humbles him; but nature prostrates us, mercy raises us up. For this divine humanity and human divinity accomplished such and so great a miracle that the unworthy weakness of mortals merited this kind of grace.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Denique ... videte","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a transitional adverb 'Denique' and a hortatory subjunctive 'videte', marking a shift from preceding argument to a demonstrative conclusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Vade ... ad Deum vestrum","severity":"info","text":"The quoted saying 'Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad Patrem vestrum; ad Deum meum et ad Deum vestrum' is not a direct biblical verse but a paraphrase of Christ's words, likely conflating John 20:17 and similar passages to emphasize the distinction between Christ and believers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"macbinamenta","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'macbinamenta' (machinations) is a rare or possibly corrupt form; the standard classical term is 'machinamenta'. The spelling may reflect late Latin or scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"hæreticorum","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'all heretics' likely targets Arian and Nestorian positions that denied the full unity of divine and human natures in Christ, a central concern in 5th-century North African Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"divina humanitas et humana divinitas","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'divine humanity and human divinity' echoes the language of the Council of Ephesus (431) and later Chalcedonian formulations, indicating Capreolus's alignment with orthodox Christological paradox.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"IMum siquidem natura co;cquat","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'IMum siquidem natura co;cquat' is corrupt; 'IMum' likely stands for 'Ipsum' (himself) and 'co;cquat' for 'coaequat' (equalizes). The text requires emendation for sense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical source of the quoted saying is not given; it may be a composite or paraphrase.","The reading 'macbinamenta' is uncertain; it may be a scribal error for 'machinamenta'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"XIII. Et quis poterit, vel cui sufficiat paginarum sanctarum omnia uno in tempore documenta congerere, quibus sincera hæc et mera veritas perdocetur? Sed et modus sermonis qui jam dudum excessit, aliquando tenendus est, nec mihi diutius laborandum cum eis, quos instruente Domino eruditos agnovi. Instate itaque, sicut Apostolus (II Tim. IV, 2) præcepit, opportune atque importune; et doctrina sana universos errantes arguite, revocate, instruite, roborate: non mea, quæ nulla aut parva sunt, habentes in hac fidei regula documenta; sed Scripturarum divinarum, ac magnorum et doctissimorum virorum, qui hæc ante nos et firmissime tenuerunt, ct multiplicibus libris eloquentissime docuerunL.","english":"XIII. And who could, or to whom would it suffice, to gather together all the proofs of the sacred pages at one time, by which this pure and unadulterated truth is fully taught? But the manner of speaking, which has already long exceeded its bounds, must at some point be restrained, and I must labor no longer with those whom, with the Lord instructing, I have recognized as learned. Therefore, press on, as the Apostle (2 Tim. 4:2) commanded, opportunely and inopportunely; and with sound doctrine, refute, recall, instruct, and strengthen all who are in error: not relying on my own proofs, which are none or slight, in this rule of faith; but on those of the divine Scriptures, and of the great and most learned men, who before us held these things most firmly and taught them most eloquently in manifold books.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"II Tim. IV, 2","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'II Tim. IV, 2' refers to 2 Timothy 4:2, but the verse numbering is non-standard; the Vulgate has 2 Timothy 4:2 as 'praedica' (preach), not 'opportune atque importune'. The phrase echoes 2 Timothy 4:2 in sense but may be a loose quotation or a conflation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"modus sermonis","severity":"info","text":"'Modus sermonis' (manner of speaking) here refers to the rhetorical length of the letter itself, which Capreolus acknowledges has exceeded proper bounds. This is a self-referential structural remark, not a doctrinal term.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"doctrina sana","severity":"info","text":"'Doctrina sana' (sound doctrine) is a standard patristic phrase for orthodox teaching, often contrasted with heresy. Capreolus uses it to align his exhortation with apostolic authority and the rule of faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"XIII","severity":"info","text":"This is the final section (XIII) of the letter, serving as a peroration. Capreolus concludes by urging continued pastoral action and grounding his authority in Scripture and the Fathers, not in his own writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"magnorum et doctissimorum virorum","severity":"info","text":"Capreolus appeals to 'great and most learned men' who preceded him, likely referring to earlier Latin Fathers such as Tertullian, Cyprian, or Augustine. This reflects the late antique practice of citing auctoritates to bolster doctrinal arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'II Tim. IV, 2' does not match standard Vulgate numbering; the intended verse may be 2 Timothy 4:2 (preach) or a conflation with another passage. The reading taken is that Capreolus quotes loosely from memory or uses a non-standard versification."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}