{"slug":"tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1","title":"Contra Maximinum Arianum Libellus","title_source":"Contra Maximinum Arianum Libellus","author":"Cerealis Castellinensis Episcopus","genre":"polemic","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T07:04:47Z","cost_usd":0.013348},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp936.tmp936.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/tmp936/tmp936/tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":26,"english_words":6761,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":24974,"commentary_units":154,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":2,"ambiguities":50,"work_notes":6,"external_links":3,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1","abstract":"Cerealis, bishop of Castellum in Mauretania, composed this Latin polemic against the Arian bishop Maximinus, defending Nicene orthodoxy through scriptural and logical argument. The work reflects the theological conflicts of mid-5th-century North Africa under Vandal rule, where Homoian Christianity was promoted. It survives in a single manuscript tradition and was later used by Catholic controversialists as a patristic witness against Arianism. The attribution to Cerealis is secure, but Maximinus's identity remains uncertain; he may be the same figure who debated Augustine. The text lacks a critical apparatus and is preserved in early modern editions without collation against other witnesses.","historical_context":"The treatise is dated to circa 440–450 CE, during the Vandal occupation of North Africa. Cerealis, bishop of Castellum in Mauretania, likely wrote it in response to Maximinus’s Arian teachings, which were promoted under Vandal rule. The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, preserved in early modern editions. Its limited circulation may reflect the disruption of North African church life under Vandal and later Islamic rule. The text is a polemic, defending Nicene orthodoxy against Homoian Christianity, and was cited by later Catholic controversialists, notably in the 16th century, as a patristic witness against Arianism. It appears in collections of anti-Arian works but never entered the liturgical tradition.","significance":"This work is a rare surviving example of North African anti-Arian polemic from the Vandal period, illustrating the theological and political struggles between Nicene and Homoian Christians. It was later used by Catholic controversialists in the 16th century and relates to broader patristic debates on Trinitarian doctrine, echoing arguments found in Augustine and other Nicene fathers.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 440–450 CE","event":"Cerealis composes Contra Maximinum Arianum Libellus in North Africa under Vandal rule."},{"date":"5th century","event":"Vandal kings promote Homoian (Arian) Christianity in North Africa, provoking Nicene responses."},{"date":"16th century","event":"The treatise is cited by Catholic controversialists as a patristic witness against Arianism."},{"date":"Early modern period","event":"The work is preserved in early modern editions from a single manuscript tradition."}],"relations":[{"work":"Augustine, Contra Maximinum Arianum","relation":"Possibly same Maximinus; both works address Arian bishop Maximinus.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Nicene Creed (325)","relation":"Defends Nicene orthodoxy against Homoian subordinationism.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Vandal persecution accounts (e.g., Victor of Vita)","relation":"Contemporary context of Nicene-Homoian conflict in North Africa.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Arianism","label":"Arianism","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism","reason":"Background on the theological controversy Cerealis opposes."},{"key":"wikipedia:Vandal Kingdom","label":"Vandal Kingdom","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal_Kingdom","reason":"Historical context of Vandal rule and religious policy."},{"key":"wikipedia:North Africa during Antiquity","label":"North Africa during Antiquity","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa_during_classical_antiquity","reason":"Regional context for the work's composition and transmission."}],"cautions":["The date is approximate, based on the Vandal occupation and Cerealis's episcopacy; no precise year is known.","Maximinus's identity is uncertain; he may or may not be the same Maximinus who debated Augustine.","The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, limiting textual certainty.","This edition lacks a critical apparatus and does not collate variant readings."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000388,"generated":"2026-11-15T07:04:46Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp936/tmp936/tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp936.tmp936.opp-lat1","status":"warn","blocking":[],"warnings":[{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"4","kind":"scripture"},{"code":"commentary-single-kind","i":"6","kind":"scripture"}],"stats":{"passages":26,"translated":26,"commentary_passages":26,"commentary_units":154,"english_words":6761,"source_letters":24854,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis, bishop of Castellum in Mauretania, composed this polemic against the Arian bishop Maximinus. The work defends Nicene orthodoxy through scriptural and logical argument, reflecting the theological controversies of the mid-5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise is dated to circa 440–450 CE, during the Vandal occupation of North Africa. Cerealis likely wrote it in response to Maximinus’s Arian teachings, which were promoted under Vandal rule.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, preserved in early modern editions. Its limited circulation may reflect the disruption of North African church life under Vandal and later Islamic rule.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis’s treatise was cited by later Catholic controversialists, notably in the 16th century, as a patristic witness against Arianism. It appears in collections of anti-Arian works but never entered the liturgical tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not provide a critical apparatus for variant readings. The Latin text follows a single source (ogl-pl) without collation against other manuscripts or early prints.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The attribution to Cerealis is secure, but the identity of Maximinus remains uncertain. He may be the same Maximinus who debated Augustine, though this is not proven.","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: polemic in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 26 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 1:1."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":26},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"CEREALIS EPISCOPI CONTRA MAXIMINUM ARIANUM LIBELLUS.\n\nINTRODUCTIO.\n\nCum Carthaginem Cerealis sanctæ catholicæ fidei Castellensis episcopus venit, et quia vicinior est illis civitatibus quæ Dei furore in rserunt, regales pulsavit aures ejus adventus. Et cum ab eo requirerent, quibus erat injunctum, si vera sint quae fama jactavit, ex ordine cum enarraret, Maximinus Ariomanitarum episcopus supervenit, et ait episcopo Cereali: Videtis qu:c vestra faciunt peccata? ideo deseruit Deus vos. CEREALIS. Quare nos deseruit, et non potius vos, qui animas sub Christiani nocitis stylo jngulatis, nec veram fidem tenetis? MAXIMINUS. Si veram fidem tenetis, proponam tibi quæstiones vestræ fidei, ut si veram habes fidem, volo ut ad unam propositionem excludendam duo vel tria testimonia adducas. CEREALIS. Non duo vel tria, sed plura adducam testimonia. MAXIMINUS. Primo duce: Quia æqualia est Patri Filius. De unitate; quia unus est Deus Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Quomodo Pater miserit Fil um. Quomodo Paler clarificet Filium. Quia omnipotens est Filius. Quare dixit Filius: Pater major me est. Vel quare dictum: quod Pater tradidi, Filium. De libera Filii potestate. Contra id quod dicunt: Auctor est qui generat, vident principium Patri, etc. Contra id quod dicunt: Patrem imperasse Filio ut faceret creaturam. Quia Deus est Spiritus sanctus. Quia creator est Spiritus sanctus.","english":"Bishop Cerealis’s Little Book Against Maximinus the Arian.\n\nIntroduction.\n\nWhen Cerealis, bishop of Castellum of the holy catholic faith, came to Carthage, and because he is nearer to those cities which, by God’s wrath, have fallen, his arrival struck the royal ears. And when those to whom the task had been entrusted asked him whether the things which rumor had spread were true, and he was relating them in order, Maximinus, bishop of the Ariomanites, came up and said to Bishop Cerealis: “Do you see what your sins have done? Therefore God has abandoned you.” Cerealis: “Why has He abandoned us, and not rather you, who slaughter souls under the Christian name with your pen, and do not hold the true faith?” Maximinus: “If you hold the true faith, I will set before you questions concerning your faith, so that if you have the true faith, I wish that for refuting one proposition you should bring forward two or three testimonies.” Cerealis: “I will bring forward not two or three, but many testimonies.” Maximinus: “First, I lead: that the Son is equal to the Father. On the unity: that God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. How the Father sent the Son. How the Father glorifies the Son. That the Son is omnipotent. Why the Son said: ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Or why it is said: that the Father handed over the Son. On the free power of the Son. Against what they say: ‘The one who generates is the author, they see a beginning for the Father,’ etc. Against what they say: that the Father commanded the Son to make creation. That the Holy Spirit is God. That the Holy Spirit is creator.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cerealis Castellensis episcopus","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis was bishop of Castellum, a see in North Africa. His arrival in Carthage and debate with Maximinus reflect the ongoing conflict between Nicene and Homoian Christians in the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ariomanitarum","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Ariomanitarum' is a polemical neologism, combining 'Arius' with 'manes' (madness), used by Nicene authors to disparage Homoian Christians as followers of a madman.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Introductions","severity":"info","text":"This passage serves as a narrative introduction, setting the scene in Carthage and presenting the initial exchange between Cerealis and Maximinus, which frames the subsequent theological disputation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater major me est","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes John 14:28, where Jesus says 'The Father is greater than I,' a key verse in Arian arguments for subordinationism, which Cerealis will later refute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"qu:c vestra faciunt peccata","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains a probable scribal error: 'qu:c' likely stands for 'quae' (what), but the phrase is awkward. The English draft interprets it as 'what your sins have done,' which is plausible.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Contra Maximinum Arianum Libellus","severity":"info","text":"This work is attributed to Cerealis and survives in a single manuscript tradition. It was used in later anti-Arian polemics, though its influence is limited compared to major patristic treatises.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact location of Castellum is uncertain; it may refer to Castellum in Mauretania or another North African see.","The phrase 'qu:c vestra faciunt peccata' is textually corrupt; the intended meaning is likely 'what your sins have done,' but the syntax is irregular."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Quia vivificator est Spiritus sanctus. Quia et ipse propriæ potestatis est et voluntatis et omnipotens. De Tr nitate vel unitate. Quia invisibilis est Filius. Conlra id quod dicunt: Ex Pulre Filium, et Spiritu sancto facta omnia. Contra id quod dicunt: Quare prius Pater, deinde Filius nominatur. Contra idquQd dicunt: Quod Pater subjecit illi omnia.\n\nINCIPIT LIBELLUS.\n\nCAPUT PRIMUM.\n\nCEREALIS. Quia aequalis est Patri Filius, sic docet apostolus Paulus dicens: Hoc sentite in vobis, quod et in Christo Jesu, qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo (Philip. II). Qui est in forma Det Patria, non potest esse minor, qui non rapuit quod non habuit, quia in forma Patris semper fuit. In Evangelio Joannes ait: Propterea Judæi volebant eum interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et Patrem suum dicebat Deum, æqualem se faciens Deo (Joan. v). Item ipse Dominus dixit: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem. Item in Evangelio: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Hic unum pro æqualitate dixit, quia æquales sunt, qui unum sunt. Sumus autem idco dixit, quia alius est Filius. Sed unum sunt Pater et Filius. Neque enim dividitur Deus, cum ipse Filius dicat: Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est.","english":"Because the Holy Spirit is life-giving. Because He also is of His own power and will and omnipotent. On the Trinity or unity. Because the Son is invisible. Against what they say: that the Son is from the Father, and that all things were made by the Holy Spirit. Against what they say: why the Father is named first, then the Son. Against what they say: that the Father subjected all things to Him.\n\nHere begins the little book.\n\nChapter One.\n\nCerealis. That the Son is equal to the Father, the apostle Paul teaches thus, saying: Think this in yourselves, which is also in Christ Jesus, who, since He was in the form of God, did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God (Phil. 2). He who is in the form of God the Father cannot be lesser; He who did not seize what He did not have, because He was always in the form of the Father. In the Gospel, John says: For this reason the Jews wanted to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called His Father God, making Himself equal to God (John 5). Likewise the Lord Himself said: He who sees me sees also the Father. Likewise in the Gospel: I and the Father are one. Here He said \"one\" for equality, because those who are one are equal. But He said \"are\" because the Son is another. Yet the Father and the Son are one. For God is not divided, since the Son Himself says: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"INCIPIT LIBELLUS. CAPUT PRIMUM.","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'INCIPIT LIBELLUS' marks the formal beginning of the treatise, and 'CAPUT PRIMUM' introduces the first chapter, following the introductory headings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philip. II","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Philip. II' refers to Philippians 2:6, where Paul states that Christ, being in the form of God, did not consider it usurpation to be equal to God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. v","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. v' refers to John 5:18, where the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he broke the Sabbath and called God his Father, making himself equal to God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego et Pater unum sumus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Ego et Pater unum sumus' echoes John 10:30, a key text for Nicene theology on the unity of Father and Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Quia vivificator est Spiritus sanctus","severity":"info","text":"The opening headings list topics of Arian controversy, including the Holy Spirit as life-giver and the Son's equality, reflecting fourth-century debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Conlra id quod dicunt","severity":"caution","text":"The spelling 'Conlra' is a scribal error for 'Contra', common in Latin manuscripts; the sense is 'Against what they say'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Quia vivificator est Spiritus sanctus' may be a heading or a direct assertion; the translation treats it as a list of topics.","The exact referent of 'Philip. II' is Philippians 2:6, but the verse numbering may vary in early Latin Bibles."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Quiavero non solam unum sunt Pater et Filius addito Spiritu sancto, subter habes demonstratum, unum autem ad societatem pe ti et Patris et Filii, unum autem ad solum Dominum pertinet, quia et Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Item ipse Dominus in Evangelio, Omnia quæ habet Pater, mea sunt. Item ipse Filius in Evangelio ad Patrem dicit: Omnia mea tua sunt, et tua omnia mea sunt. Et ilerum: Qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem. Item in Evangelio: Qui me pdit, et Patrem meum odit. Item in Epistola Joannis: Qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet; sed qu. confitetur Filium, et Filium habet et Patrem. Item in I Salomone: Splendor est lucis æternæ, et sp culun sine macula Dei majestatis, et imago bon tatis illlus (Sap. VII). Hoc de Filio dicit. Item in Evangelio Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso. Quod autem dicit, dedit genuit intelligitur. Aut si postea dedit vitam jam genito Filio Pater, ergo genitus Filius sine vita erat. Et quomodo dicit ipse in Evangelio; Ego sum via, veritas, et vita? Item ad Hebræos sic de Filio dicit Apostolus: Qui cum sit, inquit, splendor gloriæ, et figura substantiæ ejus, gerens quoque omnia verbo virtutis suæ (Hebr. i. Ergo splendor gloriæ, et figura substantiae ipsius teneat splendorem, id e t, veritatem? Figura autem Dei æqualitas dicitur Dei.","english":"Because the Father and the Son are not only one with the addition of the Holy Spirit, as is demonstrated below; but \"one\" pertains to the fellowship of both the Father and the Son, while \"one\" pertains to the Lord alone, because there are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the Lord Himself in the Gospel: \"Everything that the Father has is mine.\" Likewise, the Son Himself in the Gospel says to the Father: \"All that is mine is yours, and all that is yours is mine.\" And again: \"He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.\" Likewise, in the Gospel: \"He who hates me hates my Father.\" Likewise, in the Epistle of John: \"He who denies the Son does not have the Father; but he who confesses the Son has both the Son and the Father.\" Likewise, in the first book of Solomon: \"He is the splendor of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of His goodness\" (Wisdom 7). This is said about the Son. Likewise, in the Gospel: \"Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to have life in Himself.\" But what He says, \"gave,\" is understood as \"begot.\" Or if the Father later gave life to the Son already begotten, then the begotten Son was without life. And how does He Himself say in the Gospel: \"I am the way, the truth, and the life\"? Likewise, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle says this about the Son: \"Who, being,\" he says, \"the splendor of glory, and the form of His substance, also bearing all things by the word of His power\" (Hebrews 1). Therefore, the splendor of glory and the form of His substance holds the splendor, that is, the truth? But the form of God is called the equality of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quia vero non solam unum sunt Pater et Filius addito Spiritu sancto","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a transitional argument that the Father and Son are not merely one with the Holy Spirit added, but that 'one' has different senses for the fellowship of Father and Son versus the Lord alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnia quæ habet Pater, mea sunt","severity":"info","text":"This saying is not a direct Gospel quotation but a summary of the unity of possessions between Father and Son, likely derived from John 16:15 or similar passages.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnia mea tua sunt, et tua omnia mea sunt","severity":"info","text":"This reciprocal declaration is not found verbatim in the canonical Gospels; it may be a paraphrase of the mutual sharing of attributes in Johannine theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 5:23 or similar passages on the honor due to both Father and Son, though not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui me odit, et Patrem meum odit","severity":"info","text":"This is a loose citation of John 15:23-24, where hatred of the Son implies hatred of the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet; sed qui confitetur Filium, et Filium habet et Patrem","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 1 John 2:22-23, emphasizing that denial of the Son entails loss of the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has several corruptions (e.g., 'pe ti' for 'pertinet', 'ilerum' for 'iterum', 'pdit' for 'odit', 'sp culun' for 'speculum', 'bon tatis illlus' for 'bonitatis illius'), which the English draft resolves by emendation. The phrase 'Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso' is not a direct Gospel quotation but a theological inference. The citatio"],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Item apostoIus Paulus ad Colossenses de Filio dicit: In ipso inhabitat, inquit, omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter. Si in Christo habitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis, ct quontodo minor est FHus?\n\nCAPUT II.\n\nQuod unus Deus Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, sic docetur. Ipse Dominus in lege dicit: Audi, Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est. Et Apostolus dicit: Nullus est De.., nisi unus. Item ipse dicit: unus Deus, una fides, unum baptisma (Eph. IV). Item apostolus Jacobus dicit: Tu credis quia unus est Deus, bene facis; et dæmones credunt et contremiscunt (Jac. II). Hanc fidem contremiscunt daemones quam veram esse noluerunt. Ipse Dominus dicit: Ego sum Deus ct non est alius præter me. Item in psalm. XXVII: Quis Deus præter Dominum, aut quis Deus præter Deum nostrum? Et ipsi confitentur quia et Filius Deus est. Ostendant mihi quomodo unus est, nisi quia Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus unus est.","english":"The Apostle Paul also says of the Son in the letter to the Colossians: \"In him,\" he says, \"dwells every fullness of the Godhead bodily.\" If every fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, how then is the Son lesser?\n\nChapter II.\n\nThat the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God is taught thus. The Lord himself says in the Law: \"Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God.\" And the Apostle says: \"There is no God but one.\" Likewise he says: \"One God, one faith, one baptism\" (Eph. 4). Likewise the Apostle James says: \"You believe that God is one; you do well; even the demons believe and tremble\" (James 2). The demons tremble at this faith, which they refused to believe to be true. The Lord himself says: \"I am God, and there is no other besides me.\" Likewise in Psalm 27: \"What God is there besides the Lord, or what God is there besides our God?\" And they themselves confess that the Son is also God. Let them show me how He is one, unless it is because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ad Colossenses","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'In ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter' is not a direct quotation from the canonical Colossians but likely a conflation or loose paraphrase of Col 2:9, where Paul speaks of the 'fullness of deity' dwelling in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Audi, Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the Shema Yisrael (Deut 6:4), a foundational monotheistic confession, here adapted to support Trinitarian unity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nullus est Deus nisi unus","severity":"info","text":"This phrase is not a direct biblical quotation but a summary of Pauline monotheism, possibly derived from 1 Cor 8:4 or Eph 4:5-6.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"unus Deus, una fides, unum baptisma (Eph. IV)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'unus Deus, una fides, unum baptisma' is not found in Eph 4; it may be a conflation of Eph 4:5 ('one Lord, one faith, one baptism') with a monotheistic formula.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Tu credis quia unus est Deus, bene facis; et daemones credunt et contremiscunt (Jac. II)","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct quotation from James 2; it may be a paraphrase of James 2:19, where demons are said to believe and tremble, but the wording is adapted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego sum Deus et non est alius praeter me","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical verse but a monotheistic formula possibly derived from Isa 45:5-6 or similar Old Testament passages emphasizing divine uniqueness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains several scriptural citations that are not verbatim from the Bible but are paraphrased or conflated, reflecting the author's rhetorical adaptation for anti-Arian polemic."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"sAPOr III.\n\nQuomodo miserit Pater Filium, sic docetur: Missio Filii incarnatio est Filii; testificatur apostolus Paulus et qnis missus sit, utrum Filius Dei, an Filius hominis, dice: Misit Deut Filium suum. factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret (Gal. IV). Ergo qui ex muliere factus est, ipse missus qui est, etiam sub lege fuit, sicut dixit; nam Deus condidit legem. Item ipse apostolus dicit de Christo: Semetipsum exinanivit fo mam servi accipiens (Philip. II). Quando semetipsum exinanivit, tunc semetipsum misit; nam et ipse Filius dicit: Ego veni quærere et salvare quod perierat. Hic non dicit, missus sum, sed veni. Nam et Spirit sa actus misit eum, sicut sriptam, ipso docente, esi in Isaia propheta: Et nunc, inquit, Dominus misit me, et Spiritus ejus (Isai. XLVIII). Item dicit ipse Filius: Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me, evangelizare pauperibus misit me, etc. Ergo major est Spiritus sanctus Filio, si major cst qui mittit, quia Spiritus sanctu. misit Filium Dei. Deus utique ubique est, quia ait: Cælum et terram ego impleo; Et alibi dicit: Cœlum mihi sedes est, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Quomodo igitur mittitur Filius? aut quomodo mittit Pater, si in coelo et in terra ubique unus est Deus? item ludi ubi non solum aequales ab æqualibus, sed et majores mittantur a minoribus, sicut legimus an.","english":"Chapter III.\n\nHow the Father sent the Son is taught thus: The sending of the Son is the incarnation of the Son; the Apostle Paul testifies as to who was sent, whether the Son of God or the Son of man, saying: \"God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law\" (Gal. IV). Therefore, he who was born of a woman is the one who was sent, and he was also under the law, as he said; for God established the law. Likewise, the same Apostle says of Christ: \"He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant\" (Phil. II). When He emptied Himself, then He sent Himself; for the Son Himself says: \"I came to seek and to save what was lost.\" Here He does not say, \"I was sent,\" but \"I came.\" For the Holy Spirit also sent Him, as it is written, with Him teaching, in the prophet Isaiah: \"And now,\" He says, \"the Lord sent me, and His Spirit\" (Isa. XLVIII). Likewise, the Son Himself says: \"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me, He sent me to evangelize the poor,\" etc. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son, if the one who sends is greater, because the Holy Spirit sent the Son of God. God is certainly everywhere, for He says: \"I fill heaven and earth\"; and elsewhere He says: \"Heaven is my seat, but earth is the footstool of my feet.\" How then is the Son sent? Or how does the Father send, if in heaven and on earth God is one and everywhere? Likewise, we read that not only are equals sent by equals, but also greater ones are sent by lesser ones.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quomodo miserit Pater Filium, sic docetur","severity":"info","text":"This opening formula introduces a new argument in the polemic, structured as a question-and-answer on the Son's mission, typical of Cerealis's method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Misit Deus Filium suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret (Gal. IV)","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites Galatians 4:4-5, but the wording conflates Paul's text with a paraphrase; the reference is to the Son's incarnation and mission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens (Philip. II)","severity":"info","text":"Philippians 2:7 is quoted to argue that the Son's self-emptying is equivalent to his self-sending, a key point in the anti-Arian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Et nunc, inquit, Dominus misit me, et Spiritus ejus (Isai. XLVIII)","severity":"info","text":"Isaiah 48:16 is cited to show the Holy Spirit's role in sending the Son, which Cerealis uses to challenge Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"exinanivit","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'exinanivit' (emptied) is a technical term in Christology, drawn from Philippians 2:7, used to describe the Son's incarnation and kenosis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ludi ubi non solum aequales ab aequalibus, sed et majores mittantur a minoribus","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis references a common social practice (ludi, games) where equals or superiors are sent by inferiors, to argue that sending does not imply superiority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has 'sAPOr III' as a chapter heading, likely a scribal error for 'CAPUT III' (Chapter III).","The phrase 'qnis missus sit' is unclear; the English draft interprets it as 'who was sent', but the Latin may be corrupt."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"gelum esse missum a Tobia, et Chrislus missus est a Pilato ad Herodem. Nunquid humiliavit se angelus, quia perrexit quo missus est a Tobia? ant humiliavit se Christus, qui a Pilato missus est ad llerodem? Vis scire, quia ub:que est Filius, nec est ubi mittatur,audi quid dicit ipse Filius: Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de cœlo; Filius hominis, qui est i cœlo. Non enim dixit, qui fuit in cœlo, sed qui est coelo, et tamen in terra loquebatur; sed et in lerra tunc homo fuit et Deus. Nam si Deus non fuit in terra, quomodo angeli i! i ministrabant, sicut scriptum est: Et discessit diabolus, et venerunt angeli, et ministrabant ei (Joan. XVII).\n\nCAPUT Iv.\n\nQuomodo clarificet Pater Filium, sic docetur. Nam et Filius clarificat Patrem, sicut scriptum est in Evangelio dicente ipso Filio ad Patrem: Ego te clarificavi super terram. Iterum ipse Filius dicit: Pater, clarifica Filium tuum, ut et Filius tuus clarificet te. Et ipse Spiritus sanctus clarificat Filium, quia scriptum est: Ipse me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis. Si ergo clarificat Spiritus sanctius Filium, nunquam major est Filio Spiritus sanctus. Et ipse Filius dicit in psalmo: Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me. Ergo sacrificium laudis holocaustum passionis accipitur; in passione ergo clarificatur homo, nam Deus semper est gloriosus.","english":"...as an angel was sent by Tobias, and Christ was sent by Pilate to Herod. Did the angel humble himself because he went where he was sent by Tobias? Or did Christ humble himself, who was sent by Pilate to Herod? Do you wish to know that the Son is everywhere and there is no place where he may be sent? Hear what the Son himself says: No one ascends into heaven except he who descended from heaven; the Son of man, who is in heaven. For he did not say, who was in heaven, but who is in heaven, and yet he was speaking on earth; but on earth he was then both man and God. For if God were not on earth, how would the angels have ministered to him, as it is written: And the devil departed, and the angels came, and they ministered to him (John 17).\n\nChapter IV.\n\nHow the Father glorifies the Son is taught thus. For the Son also glorifies the Father, as it is written in the Gospel, with the Son himself saying to the Father: I have glorified you on earth. Again the Son himself says: Father, glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you. And the Holy Spirit himself glorifies the Son, because it is written: He himself will glorify me, because he will receive from me, and will announce to you. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Holy Spirit is never greater than the Son. And the Son himself says in the psalm: The sacrifice of praise will honor me. Therefore the sacrifice of praise is understood as the holocaust of the passion; thus in the passion the man is glorified, for God is always glorious.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de cœlo; Filius hominis, qui est in cœlo","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis adapts John 3:13 (Vetus Latina variant) to argue the Son’s omnipresence, stressing present tense 'est' over past 'fuit'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Et discessit diabolus, et venerunt angeli, et ministrabant ei","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites John 17 (likely a conflation of John 1:51 and 12:44 in Vetus Latina) to prove angelic ministry to Christ on earth.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego te clarificavi super terram","severity":"info","text":"An unidentifiable Gospel saying; Cerealis uses it to show reciprocal glorification between Father and Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater, clarifica Filium tuum, ut et Filius tuus clarificet te","severity":"info","text":"Another unidentifiable Gospel saying, possibly from a lost apocryphon or liturgical tradition, supporting mutual glorification.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ipse me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis attributes this to the Holy Spirit glorifying the Son; source unknown, likely a Vetus Latina variant or apocryphal saying.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites a psalm (possibly Psalm 50:21 LXX) to link sacrifice of praise with passion, arguing the man is glorified, not the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Gospel citations in Chapter IV are not traceable to canonical texts; they may be Vetus Latina variants or apocryphal. Cerealis’s argument assumes their authority without identifying them."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Vis scire quia non solum semper g'oriosus fuit Filius, sed et Dens gloriæ fuit et est, apostolus Paulus dicit de Judæis: Si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloria crucifixissent. Nunc ergo qui mori potuit, ipse et glorificari potuit, homo tantum. Nam andi quid dicat ipse Filius, quomodo se ipse sanctificat: In veritate, diccus, sanctifico meipsum.\n\nCAPIT v.\n\nQuod omnipotens est Filius, sic docetur. In Salomone legitur: Omnipotens sermo tuus, Domine, exilien. a regalibus sedibus tuis in mediam extermin i terram prosilivit (Sap. IVIII). Ergo et rex est qui regales obtinet sedes. Item in Apocalypsi: Hæc dicit Filius Dei, qui est et qui fuit omnipotens Deus, In Evangelio: Omnia quæcunque Pater facit, hæc el Filius similiter facit (Joan. v). Item in Evangelio: Sicut Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic Filius quod vult vivificat. In Isaia Filius c.t: Ecce ego mittam manum meam super vos et deprædabuntur qui deprædaverunt vos, et scietis quia Dominus omnipotens, sum, et qui misit me Dominus omnipotens est.","english":"Do you wish to know that the Son was not only always glorious, but also was and is the God of glory? The apostle Paul says of the Jews: For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. Now, therefore, he who could die could also be glorified—only a man. For hear what the Son himself says, how he sanctifies himself: \"In truth,\" he says, \"I sanctify myself.\"\n\nChapter 5.\n\nThat the Son is omnipotent is taught thus. In Solomon it is read: \"Your omnipotent word, O Lord, leaping from your royal thrones, has sprung forth into the midst of the land of destruction\" (Wisdom 18:15? [likely Wisdom 18:15, but text uncertain]). Therefore he is also king who holds royal thrones. Likewise in the Apocalypse: \"Thus says the Son of God, who is and who was omnipotent God.\" In the Gospel: \"Everything that the Father does, this the Son likewise does\" (John 5). Likewise in the Gospel: \"As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to whom he wills.\" In Isaiah the Son says: \"Behold, I will send my hand upon you, and those who have plundered you will be plundered, and you will know that I am the omnipotent Lord, and he who sent me is the omnipotent Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominum gloria crucifixissent","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites Paul (1 Cor 2:8) to argue that the Son is the 'Lord of glory' and thus divine, not merely a creature subject to humiliation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In veritate, diccus, sanctifico meipsum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'I sanctify myself' is not a direct biblical quotation; it may reflect John 17:17-19 or a lost variant, used to show the Son's self-sanctifying power.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnipotens sermo tuus, Domine, exilien. a regalibus sedibus tuis in mediam extermin i terram prosilivit","severity":"caution","text":"The citation from 'Solomon' (Wisdom 18:15) is corrupt; the Latin text is garbled, likely from a misreading of the Septuagint or a faulty manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hæc dicit Filius Dei, qui est et qui fuit omnipotens Deus","severity":"info","text":"This Apocalypse citation is not found in the canonical Revelation; it may be from an apocryphal apocalypse or a misremembered verse, used to assert the Son's omnipotence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnia quæcunque Pater facit, hæc el Filius similiter facit","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis paraphrases John 5:19 to argue that the Son does all that the Father does, supporting his omnipotence against Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecce ego mittam manum meam super vos et deprædabuntur qui deprædaverunt vos","severity":"caution","text":"This Isaiah citation is not found in the canonical text; it may be from a lost version or a free adaptation, used to show the Son's self-identification as 'omnipotent Lord'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of the Wisdom citation is corrupt, making the exact verse uncertain.","The Apocalypse and Isaiah citations are not identifiable in canonical scripture, suggesting possible use of apocryphal or variant texts.","The phrase 'sanctifico meipsum' has no clear biblical parallel, leaving its source ambiguous."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Jeremias propheta dicit: Magnus est, et non habet finem, excelsus et immensus hic Deus noster, et non est alius. Et ut appareat de Christo dici, sequitur: Postea in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. Item Aposlolus: Nos autem, inquit, prædicamus Chri. stum, Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam. Item ipse cum de Judæis loquitur: Quorum patres, in quit, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedIctus in sæcula. Amen.\n\nCAPI;T VI.\n\nQuaredixeril Filius: Pater major me est, vel quare dictum quod Pater tradidit Filium suum, docetur. Scriptum est in psalmo, Filio dicente ad Patrem: De ventre matris mea Deus meus es tu ( Psal. XXI ). E go de ventre matris est Deus ejus Pater, et iden major est Pater. I:em Ipse Filios in psalmo dicit: O Domine, ego serrus tuus, ego servus tuus et filius ancillæ tuæ 'Psal. CXV), id est Mariæ. Ipse est servus. et inde major est Pater. Item: Deus, Deus meus, respice in me: quare me dereliqu sti (P al. XXI)? Et iterum: Salvum me fac ex ore leonis. Hæc ad himinem pertinent; nam et ipse ait: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam: nemo eam tollit a me, sed ego pono eam a me, et iterum sumo eam (Joan. XX). In psalm.: Ego dormivi et somnum cepi, et resurrexi, quia Dom nus suscepit me.","english":"The prophet Jeremiah says: \"Great is He, and has no end; high and immense is this God of ours, and there is no other.\" And to make it clear that this is said of Christ, it follows: \"Afterwards He was seen on earth, and He dwelt among men.\" Likewise the Apostle: \"But we,\" he says, \"preach Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God.\" Likewise he himself, when speaking of the Jews: \"Whose fathers,\" he says, \"and from whom Christ according to the flesh, who is above all God, blessed forever. Amen.\"\n\nChapter VI.\n\nWhy the Son said: \"The Father is greater than I,\" or why it is said that the Father handed over His Son, is taught. It is written in the Psalm, the Son speaking to the Father: \"From my mother's womb you are my God\" (Ps. 21). Therefore from the womb of His mother, God the Father is His God, and thus the Father is greater. Likewise the Son Himself says in the Psalm: \"O Lord, I am your servant, I am your servant and the son of your handmaid\" (Ps. 115), that is, of Mary. He Himself is the servant, and hence the Father is greater. Likewise: \"God, my God, look upon me: why have you forsaken me\" (Ps. 21)? And again: \"Save me from the mouth of the lion.\" These things pertain to the human condition; for He Himself also says: \"I have the power to lay down my soul, and I have the power to take it up again; no one takes it from me, but I lay it down from myself, and I take it up again\" (John 20). In the Psalm: \"I slept and took sleep, and I rose again, because the Lord sustained me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jeremias propheta dicit: Magnus est, et non habet finem, excelsus et immensus hic Deus noster, et non est alius. Et ut appareat de Christo dici, sequitur: Poste","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Jeremiah is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase or apocryphal expansion; the phrase 'Postea in terris visus est' echoes Baruch 3:36-38 (LXX) or a similar tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Item Aposlolus: Nos autem, inquit, prædicamus Christum, Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam.","severity":"info","text":"This citation of the Apostle (Paul) is not verbatim from the canonical epistles; it may reflect a lost or adapted source, possibly from a homiletic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"De ventre matris mea Deus meus es tu (Psal. XXI).","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 21 (LXX) corresponds to Psalm 22 in the Hebrew numbering; the verse is cited as spoken by the Son to the Father, supporting the argument for the Father's superiority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"O Domine, ego serrus tuus, ego servus tuus et filius ancillæ tuæ (Psal. CXV).","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 115 (LXX) corresponds to Psalm 116 in the Hebrew numbering; the phrase 'filius ancillæ tuæ' is interpreted as referring to Mary, emphasizing Christ's human servitude.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam: nemo eam tollit a me, sed ego pono eam a me, et iterum sumo eam (Joan. XX).","severity":"info","text":"This saying is not found in the canonical Gospel of John; it may derive from a non-canonical source or a misremembered tradition, used to illustrate Christ's control over his own life.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPI;T VI.","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading introduces a new section addressing why the Son said 'the Father is greater than I' and why the Father is said to have handed over his Son, structuring the polemic around scriptural proofs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Jeremiah citation is unclear; it may be apocryphal or a paraphrase. The Johannine saying about laying down the soul is not canonical, raising questions about its origin."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Et Apostolus, quia se ipse Filiu tradidit, sc ait: Qui me dilexit, inquit, et tradidit semet psum pro me. Item ipse Aposolus: Qui dilexit, inquit, Ecclesi tu suam, et tradidit semetipsum pro ea, mundans eam lavacro aque verbo. Item in Epistola Paulus ad Ephesios: Sicut et Christus, inquit, dilexit nos et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis. Item in psa'mo ipse dicit: Ut faciam voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui. dicit in psalmo: Deus meus, quomodo superius dixit: De ventre matris æ Deus meus es tu. Et tamen postea. sequitur, quando dixit: Ut faciam voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, adjunxit, voluit; quia voluti, fecit: ipse enim est de quo dicitur: Omnia quæcunque voluit fecit. Ipse nasci voluit, ipse mori voluit, ipse omnia pati voluit, et esurire, et sitire, et lassari, et tamen secundum hominem. Nam vis scire qualis sit Filius Dei' Isaias dicit: Deus æternus, qui fecit æt rna terræ, non laboravii neque exuriit, etc.; de Filio dicit, de quo dictum est: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Nam Deus nihit mali, ac laboris pati potuit, cui citur ti almo xx: Non accedent ad te mala, et flagellum non approvinquabit tabernaculo tuo.","english":"And the Apostle, because He Himself gave Himself, says: \"Who loved me,\" he says, \"and gave Himself for me.\" Likewise the same Apostle: \"Who loved,\" he says, \"His own Church, and gave Himself for her, cleansing her with the washing of water and the word.\" Likewise in the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians: \"Just as Christ,\" he says, \"loved us and gave Himself for us.\" Likewise in the Psalm He Himself says: \"To do Your will, my God, I willed.\" He says in the Psalm: \"My God,\" as He said above: \"From the womb of my mother, You are my God.\" And yet afterwards it follows, when He said: \"To do Your will, my God,\" He added, \"He willed\"; because He willed, He did: for He is the one of whom it is said: \"Everything that He willed, He did.\" He Himself willed to be born, He Himself willed to die, He Himself willed to suffer everything, and to hunger, and to thirst, and to be weary, and yet according to the human nature. For do you wish to know what the Son of God is like? Isaiah says: \"The eternal God, who made the eternal things of the earth, did not labor nor hunger,\" etc.; he speaks of the Son, of whom it is said: \"All things were made through Him.\" For God could suffer nothing evil, nor any toil, of whom it is said in Psalm 20: \"Evil things shall not come to you, and the scourge shall not approach your tabernacle.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui me dilexit ... et tradidit semetipsum pro me","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis conflates several Pauline passages on Christ's self-giving. The phrasing echoes Gal 2:20 and Eph 5:2, but no single verse matches exactly.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sicut et Christus ... dilexit nos et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis","severity":"info","text":"This citation of Paul to the Ephesians is not found in the canonical text; it may be a loose paraphrase of Eph 5:2 or a lost variant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus meus, quomodo superius dixit: De ventre matris æ Deus meus es tu","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis refers to Ps 22:10 (LXX) 'De ventre matris meae deus meus es tu', applying it to Christ as speaker.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non accedent ad te mala, et flagellum non appropinquabit tabernaculo tuo","severity":"info","text":"This is a close citation of Ps 91:10 (LXX) 'Non accedent ad te mala, et flagellum non appropinquabit tabernaculo tuo', used to argue Christ's divine impassibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"mundans eam lavacro aque verbo","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'washing of water and the word' reflects early Christian baptismal theology, combining water and the Word (cf. Eph 5:26).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item ... Item ... Item","severity":"info","text":"The repeated 'Item' marks a catena of proof-texts, a common polemical device to accumulate scriptural support for Christ's voluntary self-offering.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Pauline citations is uncertain; they may be conflations or from apocryphal traditions.","The phrase 'De ventre matris æ Deus meus es tu' is corrupt; the Latin text may have a scribal error."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"CAPUT VII.\n\nDe libera Filii potestate sic docetur. In Evangelio dicit: Pater, volo ut u'i ego sum, et isti sint mecum (Joan. XVII). Non dixit, peto. Non dixit in Evangelio ad leprosum, peto, sed volo, mundare (Matth, VIII). Item in Evangelio ad Petrum, dum se peteret ut amhularet super aquam, ait Jesus: Veni. Non rogavit, sed veni dixit. Item ad Chananæam nulerem dixit: Non sum missus nisi ad oves quæ perierunt domus Israel (Matth. xv). Gentilis erat mulier, tamen quia voluit, præstitit beneficium et sanavit filiam ejus, ad quam se missum non esse dixerat. Non enim ad gentes, sed ad Judæos erat destinatus Christus; tunc dixit; mulier, magna est fides tua, fiat tibi sicut vis. Et sanata est fili ejus ex illa hora. Ad quam se issum non esse dixerat, quare concedebat beneficium ci? Ergo vides quia quæ voluit rech, non quæ alius imperavit. Item in psalmo de Christo dicit: Omnia quæcunque Dominus voluit fecit in cœlo, et in terra, in mari et omnibus abyssis. Non dixit, quacunque petivit.","english":"CHAPTER VII.\n\nConcerning the free power of the Son, it is taught thus. In the Gospel He says: \"Father, I will that where I am, these also be with me\" (John 17). He did not say, \"I ask.\" He did not say in the Gospel to the leper, \"I ask,\" but \"I will,\" to be cleansed (Matthew 8). Likewise in the Gospel, when Peter asked that he might walk upon the water, Jesus said: \"Come.\" He did not entreat, but said, \"Come.\" Likewise to the Canaanite woman He said: \"I was not sent except to the sheep that have perished of the house of Israel\" (Matthew 15). The woman was a Gentile; yet because He willed, He granted the benefit and healed her daughter, to whom He had said He was not sent. For Christ was destined not for the Gentiles, but for the Jews; then He said: \"Woman, your faith is great; let it be done for you as you wish.\" And her daughter was healed from that hour. To whom He had said He was not sent, why did He grant the benefit? Therefore you see that He did what He willed, not what another commanded. Likewise in the Psalm it says concerning Christ: \"All things whatsoever the Lord willed, He did in heaven, and on earth, in the sea and in all the deeps.\" It does not say, \"whatsoever He asked.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT VII","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new argumentative unit, shifting from scriptural citations on Christ's self-giving to a demonstration of the Son's free power (libera potestas).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater, volo ut u'i ego sum, et isti sint mecum","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites John 17:21 (Vulgate: 'Pater, volo ut ubi ego sum, et isti sint mecum'), but the verse is actually John 17:24 in some traditions; the wording emphasizes Christ's will over petition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non dixit in Evangelio ad leprosum, peto, sed volo, mundare","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the leper (Matthew 8:3) is imprecise: Jesus says 'Volo, mundare' (I will, be cleansed) but the Vulgate has 'Volo, mundare' only in some manuscripts; the point contrasts volo with peto.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Veni","severity":"info","text":"The command 'Veni' (Come) to Peter walking on water is not a direct Gospel quotation; it may conflate Matthew 14:29 (Peter's request) with Jesus' response, emphasizing authority over entreaty.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non sum missus nisi ad oves quæ perierunt domus Israel","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis paraphrases Matthew 15:24 ('Non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel'), but the Vulgate reads 'Non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel' exactly; the Canaanite woman story follows in Matthew 15:22-28.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnia quæcunque Dominus voluit fecit in cœlo, et in terra, in mari et omnibus abyssis","severity":"info","text":"This citation echoes Psalm 135:6 (LXX) or a similar doxological verse, but the exact wording is not found in the Vulgate Psalter; it may be a free adaptation emphasizing divine will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has minor textual variants (e.g., 'u'i' for 'ubi', 'amhularet' for 'ambularet') that do not affect the argument.","The source of the Psalm citation is uncertain; it may be a conflation of Psalm 135:6 and other passages."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"CAPUT VIII.\n\nContra id quod dicit: Major estqui generat, minor est qui generatur. Hæc temporibus cognoscuntur, in Christo autem nulla sunt tempora, per quem omnia facta sunt. Non est enim ex tempore sempiternus, qui ante tempora noscitur generatus, scut legimus quia Adam a nullo genitus est, et tamen ipse et filius ejus ambo erant pares et æquales. quia ambo erant homines. Major et minor temporibus fiunt, quia unus senescit, et alius crescit. Sed apud Deum nunquam fuerunt tempora.\n\nIpsa enim tempora per Filium facta sunt, ei hil in Deo temporale est. Tolle ergo tempora, et ostende mihi majorem et minorem. Quemadmodum minor sit Filius non solum Patre sue, sed et angelis, apostolus Paulus ad Hebræos de ipso dicit: Nunc, inquam, modico minus ab angelis minoratum tidimus Jesum. Quare? Sequitur: Propter passionem mortis (Hebr. II).\n\nCAPUT IX.","english":"CHAPTER VIII.\n\nAgainst what is said: \"The one who generates is greater, the one who is generated is lesser.\" These things are known by times, but in Christ there are no times, through whom all things were made. For He who is known to have been generated before times is not from time eternal, just as we read that Adam was generated by no one, and yet he and his son were both equal and alike, because both were men. Greater and lesser come about by times, because one grows old and another grows. But with God there were never times.\n\nFor times themselves were made through the Son, and nothing in God is temporal. Therefore, take away times, and show me greater and lesser. How the Son is lesser not only than His Father, but also than the angels, the Apostle Paul says of Him in the Epistle to the Hebrews: \"Now,\" he says, \"we have seen Jesus made a little less than the angels.\" Why? It follows: \"Because of the passion of death\" (Heb. 2).\n\nCHAPTER IX.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT VIII","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two chapters (VIII and IX), each addressing a distinct Arian argument: the first on temporal generation, the second on the Son's inferiority to angels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. II","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites Hebrews 2:9, where the Vulgate reads 'modico minus ab angelis minoratum' (a little less than the angels), applying it to Christ's passion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Adam a nullo genitus est","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis uses Adam as a counterexample: though ungenerated, Adam was equal to his son Seth, arguing that generation does not imply inequality in the divine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"temporibus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'temporibus' (times) is central: Cerealis argues that temporal categories of greater/lesser do not apply to the eternal Son, who created time itself.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"modico minus ab angelis minoratum","severity":"caution","text":"This citation of Hebrews 2:9 is unusual; the Vulgate reads 'minoratum' (diminished), but Cerealis may be quoting an Old Latin version or adapting the text to his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'minoratum' in the Hebrews citation may reflect a variant reading or a paraphrase; the exact source is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Contra id quod dicunt; Auctor est qui generat, vi. dent principium. Patri non est auctoritas, ubi voluntas nulla est. Pater en nec volens nec nolens genuit, sed natura. Nam si volens genuit, ergo ipsa voluntas Patris Filius est, sicut legimus. Quia ipse est verbum et virtus et sapuna; ipse est et voluntas Patris. Si aliquando non fuit Filius, aliquanto non fuit Pater, ia Pater esse non potuit, si Filium non habuisset. Sed sicut Pater æternus est, ita et Filius æternus est, de quo scriptum cst: In princ, ipio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum; et Deus eras Verbum, hoc erat in principio apud Deum (Joan. i). Non capitur tempore, non habet initium, ncc includilur sæculis. Et in psalmo dicit Filius ad Patrem: Ego semper lecum sum. Si enim semper cum Patre fuit Filius, quomodo auctor est Pater, qui ante nunquam fuit? Item de ipso dicitur, Priusquam fierent montes, et fingeretur terra, et orbis terræ, a sæculo risque in sæculum tu es. Si igitur voluntas csl Patris Filius, dicatur mihi quomdo auctor est Pater, sine quo nunquam fuit Filius, quia Pater sine voluntate esse non potuit? Quod dicitur Pater, propter Filium dicitur; et ille Deus dicitur de Deo. Sed quia dixit Filius, et quod dicitur Filius, propter Patrem dicitur. Nam Ego in Patre, et Parer in me, non separatur, sed ideo unus est Deus. Sed si minor est Filius a Patre, quare dixit Paer in me est?","english":"Against what they say: \"The author is the one who generates,\" they give a beginning. The Father has no authority where there is no will. For the Father begot not by willing nor by not willing, but by nature. For if He begot by willing, then the will itself of the Father is the Son, as we read. Because He Himself is the Word and the Power and the Wisdom; He Himself is also the Will of the Father. If at some time the Son was not, then at some time the Father was not, for the Father could not be if He did not have the Son. But just as the Father is eternal, so also the Son is eternal, of whom it is written: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God, this was in the beginning with God (John 1). He is not grasped by time, He has no beginning, nor is He enclosed by ages. And in the Psalm the Son says to the Father: I am always with you. For if the Son was always with the Father, how is the Father the author, who never existed before? Likewise it is said of Him: Before the mountains were made, and the earth was formed, and the orb of the earth, from age to age you are. If therefore the Son is the Will of the Father, let it be told to me how the Father is the author, without whom the Son never was, because the Father could not be without will? What is called Father is called on account of the Son; and He is called God from God. But because the Son said, and what is called Son is called on account of the Father. For I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, they are not separated, but therefore He is one God. But if the Son is lesser than the Father, why did He say: The Father is in me?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"auctor","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'auctor' (author) is used here in a theological sense to denote the Father as the origin or source of the Son, a key term in Arian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In principio erat Verbum","severity":"info","text":"The passage quotes John 1:1-2, a foundational text for Nicene Christology, asserting the co-eternity of the Word with God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego semper tecum sum","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, attributed to the Son speaking to the Father in a psalm, is not a direct biblical quotation but likely a paraphrase of Psalm 139:18 or similar, used to argue for the Son's eternal presence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Priusquam fierent montes","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Psalm 90:2 (LXX) or similar, emphasizing the Son's pre-existence before creation, a common anti-Arian proof-text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"voluntas Patris","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis argues that if the Son is the Father's will, then the Father cannot be prior to the Son, countering the Arian claim that the Father is 'auctor' in a temporal sense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed si minor est Filius a Patre","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question concludes the passage, challenging the Arian subordinationist logic by citing John 14:20 (or similar) where the Father is in the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has 'sapuna' which is likely a scribal error for 'sapientia' (wisdom).","The phrase 'vi. dent principium' is corrupt; the translation interprets it as 'they give a beginning' but the exact reading is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Nunquam majorem potest capere minor.\n\nCAPUT X.\n\nContra id quod dicunt Patrem imperasse Filio ut faceret creaturam, respondetur. Cum utique et ipse Pater fecerit, nam scriptum est: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. i. Ubi ost nditur pariter operatos, ut unum Deum esse ministraret. Sequitur Scriptura: Et fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam. Non dixit fec erunt dii, cum dixisset faciamus hominem; sed dixit: Dei fecit hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem sua. Item si Pater non fecit creaturam, et quomo dicit Fil us: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor? Item si Pater non fecit creaturam, et quomodo dicunt apostoli ad Patrem: Tu es, Domine, qui fecisti cœlum et terram, mare et omnia quæ in eis sunt, qui per os sancti pueri tui David dixisti: Quare fremuerunt gentes, et populi medilati sunt inania? Astiterunt reges terræ, et principes convenerunt in unum ad.. versus Dominum, et adversus Christum ejus (Psal. n). Convenerunt enim in veritate in civitate ista super sanctum puerum tuum Jesum Christum, quem unxisti, Herodes et Ponitus Pitatus cum ntibus, et toto israel, et fecerunt sicut manus tua et consilium tuum præfinierat (Act. IV). Ergo de Christo loquebantur ad PaIrem, qui dicebant: Tu es, Domine, qui fecisti cœlum et terram, mare et omnia quæ in eis sunt.","english":"The lesser can never contain the greater.\n\nChapter X.\n\nAgainst what they say, that the Father commanded the Son to make creation, a response is given. Since indeed the Father Himself also made, for it is written: \"Let us make man in our image and likeness\" (Gen. i). Where it is shown that they worked equally, so that one God would be ministered. The Scripture continues: \"And God made man in his image and likeness.\" It did not say \"the gods made,\" although it had said \"let us make man\"; but it said: \"God made man in his image and likeness.\" Likewise, if the Father did not make creation, how then does the Son say: \"My Father works even now, and I work\"? Likewise, if the Father did not make creation, how then do the apostles say to the Father: \"You are, Lord, who made heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them, who through the mouth of your holy servant David said: 'Why did the nations roar, and the peoples swell with vain things? The kings of the earth stood by, and the princes assembled together against the Lord, and against his Christ' (Ps. ii). For they assembled in truth in that city against your holy servant Jesus Christ, whom you anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate with the nations, and all Israel, and they did as your hand and your counsel had predetermined\" (Acts iv). Therefore they were speaking about Christ to the Father, who said: \"You are, Lord, who made heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT X","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new argumentative unit, responding to the Arian claim that the Father commanded the Son to create.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites Genesis 1:26, but the wording 'ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram' conflates Gen 1:26 with Gen 1:27, a common patristic harmonization.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Et fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Genesis 1:27, emphasizing the singular subject 'Deus' to argue against Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor","severity":"info","text":"This saying of Jesus is not found in canonical Gospels; it may derive from apocryphal tradition or be a loose citation of John 5:17 or 5:19.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Quare fremuerunt gentes...","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis conflates Psalm 2:1-2 with a Christological interpretation, reading the 'kings' as Herod and Pilate, and applies it to Acts 4:24-30.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Act. IV","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Acts 4 is to the prayer of the early church (Acts 4:24-30), which Cerealis interprets as addressing the Father about Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'Psal. n' is ambiguous; it likely refers to Psalm 2, but the verse numbering is uncertain.","The phrase 'Faciamus hominem' may be a conflation of Gen 1:26 and 1:27, not a direct quotation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Lege in Actibus Apostolorum, et invenies de Filio dici ad Patrem istam sententiam.\n\nCAPUT XI.\n\nQuia Deus est Spiritus sanctus, sic docetur. Petrus ad eum qui subtraxerat de pretio villæ dixit: Quid est quod implevit Satanas cor tuum mentiri Spiritui sancto? Et post modum adjunxit: Non es mentitus hominibus, sed Deo (Act. v). Item in Actibus Apostolorum scribitur, Pelio cogitante et hæsitante de visu, dicit Spiritus sanctus: Ecce viri quærunt te; exsurge, et descende, et vade cum illis nihil dubitans, quia ego illos misi ad te. Et veniens Petrus ad Cornelium dixit: In veritate scio quia non est personarum Deus acceptor (Act. X). Ad gentilem en:m missus ab Spiriu sancto, quia adhuc gentibus non praedicabatur Evangelium, sed solis Judaeis. Item in Evangelio: Jesus autem Spiritu sancto plenus regressus est a Jordane. An non est Deus qui implet Deum? Ergo Deus erat in Christo, quo plenus est regressus a Jordane. Item Apostolus: Nescitis quia corpora vestra templum in vobis est Spiritus sancti? Secutus est: Glorificate ergo Deum in corpore vestro. Item in Salomone: Sp ritus Domini repleiit orbem terrarum. Item Esaias propheta: Et Dixit Dominus ad me: Vade, dii populo huic, Aure audiet is, et non intelligetis, etc. Quem dicil Deum, Esaias, ip sum dicit Spiritum sanctum Apostolus.","english":"Read in the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that this statement is made about the Son to the Father.\n\nChapter XI.\n\nThat the Holy Spirit is God is taught as follows. Peter said to the one who had withheld part of the price of the field: \"What is it that has filled your heart, Satan, to lie to the Holy Spirit?\" And shortly afterward he added: \"You have not lied to men, but to God\" (Acts 5). Likewise in the Acts of the Apostles it is written, when Pelius was thinking and hesitating about the vision, the Holy Spirit says: \"Behold, men are seeking you; arise, and go down, and go with them without any doubt, because I sent them to you.\" And Peter, coming to Cornelius, said: \"Truly I know that God is not an acceptor of persons\" (Acts 10). To the Gentile, sent by the Holy Spirit, because the Gospel was not yet being preached to the Gentiles, but only to the Jews. Likewise in the Gospel: \"But Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan.\" Is not God the one who fills God? Therefore God was in Christ, with whom he was filled when he returned from the Jordan. Likewise the Apostle: \"Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?\" He continued: \"Therefore glorify God in your body.\" Likewise in Solomon: \"The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world.\" Likewise the prophet Isaiah: \"And the Lord said to me: Go, say to this people, 'The ear will hear, and you will not understand,'\" etc. The one whom Isaiah calls God, the Apostle calls the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XI","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new argument: that the Holy Spirit is God. The preceding chapter (X) argued for the Son's co-equality; this one extends the same logic to the Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Act. v","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis conflates Acts 5:3 (Ananias) with Peter's rebuke about lying to the Holy Spirit, then cites Acts 5:9 (Peter: 'You have not lied to men, but to God') to equate the Spirit with God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Act. X","severity":"info","text":"The Cornelius episode (Acts 10) is cited: the Spirit speaks to Peter, and Peter later says God is not an acceptor of persons. Cerealis uses this to identify the Spirit as the God who sent Peter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jesus autem Spiritu sancto plenus regressus est a Jordane","severity":"info","text":"This Gospel reference (likely from a harmony or lost source) is not in the canonical Gospels verbatim. Cerealis argues: if Jesus is God and is filled by the Spirit, then the Spirit must be God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus Domini replevit orbem terrarum","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites a Solomonic text (cf. Wisdom 1:7, but not exact) to show the Spirit fills the world, implying divinity. The citation is loose, typical of patristic proof-texting.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Pelio cogitante et hæsitante de visu","severity":"caution","text":"The name 'Pelio' is obscure; it may be a corruption of 'Cornelius' or a scribal error. The English draft reads 'Pelius' but the Latin has 'Pelio'. The reference to Acts 10 suggests a confusion of characters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Pelio' is uncertain; it may be a scribal error for 'Cornelio' or a different figure.","The Gospel quotation about Jesus returning from the Jordan filled with the Holy Spirit is not found in the canonical Gospels and may derive from a lost apocryphon or a conflation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Si Deus spiritus est, quomodo Spiritus sanctas Deus non est; si non est Deus Spiritus sanctus, quomodo dicit apostolus Paulus: Divisiones autem donationum,unt, idem antem Spiritus; et divisiones operationum sunt, unus autem Deus, qui operatur omnia in omnibus, qui dividit propria unicuique prout vult (I Cor. XII)? Ipse est Spiritus sanctus, de quo dicit propheta Esaias: Spiritus, inquam, sapientiæ et intellectus, consilii et fortitudinis, scientiæ et pietatis, ct timoris Domini.\n\nCAPUT XII.\n\nQuia et creator est Spiritus sanctus, sic docetur. In Job legimus: Spiritus divinus est qui fecit me. In psalmo: Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur ( Psal. CIII), In Evangelio; Inventa est Maria habens de Spiritu sancto. Cui fuerat dictum: Spiritus sanctus superreniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi (Matth. I). In psalmo: Verbo Domini cœli firmati sunt, et Spi. ritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum (Psal XXXII). Si in utero virginis Spiritus sanctus Filium Dei fecit, quid Deo defuit quod non creavit? In Evangelio: Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest videre regnum Dei. Ampius est enim regenerare quam creare: ecce Spir itus sanctus regenerat, quando in baptismo renascimur per ipsum.","english":"If God is spirit, how is the Holy Spirit not God? If the Holy Spirit is not God, how does the Apostle Paul say: \"Now there are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are divisions of operations, but one God, who works all in all, who distributes his own to each as he wills\" (1 Cor. 12)? He is the Holy Spirit, of whom the prophet Isaiah says: \"The Spirit, I say, of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and fortitude, of knowledge and piety, and of fear of the Lord.\"\n\nChapter XII.\n\nThat the Holy Spirit is also creator is taught as follows. In Job we read: \"It is the divine Spirit that made me.\" In the Psalm: \"Send forth your spirit, and they shall be created\" (Ps. 103). In the Gospel: \"Mary was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.\" To whom it had been said: \"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you\" (Matt. 1). In the Psalm: \"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the spirit of his mouth all their power\" (Ps. 32). If in the womb of the virgin the Holy Spirit made the Son of God, what was lacking to God that he did not create? In the Gospel: \"If anyone is not reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.\" For it is greater to regenerate than to create: behold, the Holy Spirit regenerates, when we are reborn in baptism through him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Cor. XII","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites 1 Cor 12:4-6 loosely, conflating Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts with a Trinitarian argument. The Latin 'divisiones donationum' echoes the Vulgate's 'divisiones operationum' but is not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. CIII","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur' is not found in Psalm 103 (Vulgate numbering) but may refer to Psalm 104:30 or be a conflation. The text likely reflects a variant or memory error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. I","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis paraphrases the Annunciation narrative (Matt 1:18-20), but the phrase 'Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te' is not verbatim from the Vulgate; it adapts Luke 1:35. The citation is composite.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal XXXII","severity":"info","text":"The verse 'Verbo Domini cœli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum' is not in Psalm 32 (Vulgate) but resembles Psalm 33:6. The citation is imprecise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cerealis","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis, bishop of Castellum in North Africa, wrote this libellus against the Arian Maximinus. The work uses scriptural proof-texts to argue for the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, a key point in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XII","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two chapters (XI and XII) in the source edition. Chapter XII begins a new argument that the Holy Spirit is creator, using a series of biblical testimonies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation of Psalm 103 is uncertain; the verse may be a conflation or a memory error. The phrase 'Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te' blends Matthew and Luke. The source of the Job quotation is not identified in the Vulgate."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"CAPUT XIII.\n\nQuia vivificator est Spiritus, sic docetur. Apostolus dicit: Littera accidit, Spiritus autem vivificat (/ Cor. III);. Item in Evangelio: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam (loan. VI). In Ezechiele ad ossa arida flliorum Israel mandatur et dicitur, per prophetam: Dabo Spiritum meum in vobis; et vivetis. Item Apostolus dicit: Si autem Spiritus ejus qui suscitavit Jesum Christum a mortuis habitat in vobis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra per habitantemSpiritum ejus in vobis (Rom. VIII, 11). Ergo mortalia corpora vivificantur a Spiritu sancto.\n\nCAPOT XIV.\n\nQuia et ipse propriae potestatis et voluntatis sit, et omnipotens sit Spiritus S. sic docetur. Apostolus dicit: Alii datur manifestatio Spiritus ad utilitatem, alii datur per Spiritum sermo sapientiæ, alii sermo scientiæsecundum eumdem Spiritum, alii fides in eodem Spiritu, alii donatio curationum in uno Spiritu, alii operationes sanitatum, alii prophetia, alii judicatio spirituum, alii genera linguarum; hæc autem omnia operatur unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens propria unicuique prout vult (I Cor. XII).","english":"CHAPTER XIII.\n\nThat the Spirit is a life-giver is taught thus. The Apostle says: The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3). Likewise in the Gospel: It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh avails nothing (John 6). In Ezekiel, to the dry bones of the sons of Israel it is commanded and said, through the prophet: I will place my Spirit in you; and you will live. Likewise the Apostle says: But if His Spirit who raised Jesus Christ from the dead dwells in you, it will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit dwelling in you (Rom. 8:11). Therefore, mortal bodies are given life by the Holy Spirit.\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nThat the Holy Spirit is also of His own power and will, and is omnipotent, is taught thus. The Apostle says: To one is given a manifestation of the Spirit for utility, to another is given through the Spirit a word of wisdom, to another a word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another the gift of healings in one Spirit, to another operations of cures, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits, to another kinds of tongues; but all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing His own to each as He wills (1 Cor. 12).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Littera accidit, Spiritus autem vivificat","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites 2 Cor 3:6, but the Vulgate reads 'littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat'. The variant 'accidit' may be a scribal error or a non-Vulgate Latin tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 6:63, though the Vulgate has 'Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam' — identical. The reference is to Jesus' teaching on the necessity of the Spirit for life.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Dabo Spiritum meum in vobis; et vivetis","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis adapts Ezekiel 37:14, where God says 'I will put my Spirit in you, and you will live'. The Vulgate has 'dabo spiritum meum in vobis et vivetis'. The passage refers to the revival of dry bones.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Si autem Spiritus ejus qui suscitavit Jesum Christum a mortuis habitat in vobis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra per habitantem Spiritum ejus in vobis","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct Vulgate verse but a paraphrase of Romans 8:11, which in the Vulgate reads 'si autem spiritus eius qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis habitat in vobis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra'. Cerealis expands the phrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XIII ... CAPUT XIV","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two chapters, each introduced by a doctrinal claim ('Quia vivificator est Spiritus' and 'Quia et ipse propriae potestatis et voluntatis sit, et omnipotens sit Spiritus S.'), followed by scriptural proofs. This structure is typical of Cerealis' polemic method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus sanctus","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis argues for the divinity and agency of the Holy Spirit against Arian subordinationism. The claim that the Spirit is 'propriae potestatis et voluntatis' and 'omnipotens' directly counters the Arian view of the Spirit as a created being.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'accidit' in the citation of 2 Cor 3:6 is ambiguous: it may be a scribal error for 'occidit' (kills) or a variant reading. The English draft follows the standard 'kills'.","The paraphrase of Romans 8:11 is not a direct quotation; the exact Vulgate wording is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Ecce quod operatur unus atque idem Spiritus ut vull, non quæ ei imperantur. Ipse Dominus in Evangelio dicit: Spiritus ubi vult spirat (Joan. III). In Actibus Apostolorum jubet Spiritus Philippo ut se cunucho Candacis reginae conjungeret. Item Spiritus dicit: Segregate mihi Barnabam et Paulum in opere sancto, quo vocavi illos. Ecce Spiritus sanclus segregat apostolo. ct vocat. Item dc apostolis: Pentabant ire in Bithyniam, et non eos passus est Spiritus sanctus. Ecce apostolis imperat. Item in Salomne dicit: Spiritus sanctus mihi Sapientia, id est in Christo. Spiritus S. unicus, multiplex, subtilis, immobilis, incoinquinatus, certus, securus, amans bonum, omnia potens, omnia præsciens, et qui capiat omnes spiritus intelligibiles, mundus subtilis Ecce qualis est Spiritus S. Item in Evangelio: Et regressus est Jesus in virtute Spiritus in Galilæam. In virtute Spiritus ambulat Christus. Item in Actis Apostolorum legimus: Quia loquebantur apostoli quemadmodum dabat eis pronuntiatio. Spiritus dabat apostolis quemadmodum loquebantur. Item apostolus Paulus ostendit quæ tribuat Spiritus sanctus dicens: Fructus autem Spiritus est, caritas, gaudium, pax, longanimitas, benignitas, bonitas, fides, mansuetudo, continentia (I Joan; IV). Et legimus in Joanne apostolo: Quia Deus caritas est. Si Deus caritas, qualis est Spiritus sanctus, cajus cst ipsa caritas?","english":"Behold what one and the same Spirit works as it wills, not what is commanded of it. The Lord Himself says in the Gospel: The Spirit blows where it wills (John 3). In the Acts of the Apostles, the Spirit commands Philip to join himself to the eunuch of Queen Candace. Likewise the Spirit says: Separate Barnabas and Paul for me in the holy work to which I have called them. Behold, the Holy Spirit separates the apostle and calls. Likewise concerning the apostles: They intended to go into Bithynia, and the Holy Spirit did not permit them. Behold, it commands the apostles. Likewise in Solomon it says: The Holy Spirit is Wisdom to me, that is, in Christ. The Holy Spirit is unique, manifold, subtle, immovable, untainted, certain, secure, loving the good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and that which comprehends all intelligible spirits, pure, subtle. Behold what the Holy Spirit is like. Likewise in the Gospel: And Jesus returned into Galilee in the power of the Spirit. Christ walks in the power of the Spirit. Likewise in the Acts of the Apostles we read: That the apostles spoke according to the utterance given them. The Spirit gave the apostles how they spoke. Likewise the Apostle Paul shows what the Holy Spirit bestows, saying: Now the fruits of the Spirit are charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, continence (1 John 4). And we read in the Apostle John: That God is charity. If God is charity, what is the Holy Spirit, whose very charity it is?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus ubi vult spirat","severity":"info","text":"Cites John 3:8, but the Vulgate reads 'Spiritus ubi vult spirat' only in John 3:8; the reference is correct.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Segregate mihi Barnabam et Paulum","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to Acts 13:2, where the Holy Spirit instructs the church at Antioch to separate Barnabas and Paul for mission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pentabant ire in Bithyniam","severity":"info","text":"Refers to Acts 16:6-7, where Paul and Timothy are prevented by the Spirit from entering Bithynia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus sanctus mihi Sapientia","severity":"info","text":"Likely a paraphrase of Proverbs or Wisdom literature; not a direct Vulgate citation, but echoes Wisdom 7:22-23 or Proverbs 8:12.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Fructus autem Spiritus est, caritas, gaudium, pax...","severity":"info","text":"Quotes 1 John 4:7-8, but the list of fruits is from Galatians 5:22; the text conflates two passages.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"I Joan; IV","severity":"caution","text":"The citation 'I Joan; IV' is ambiguous: the fruit list is from Galatians 5:22, not 1 John 4. The author may be conflating or misattributing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Spiritus sanctus mihi Sapientia' is not a direct biblical quote; its source is uncertain.","The fruit list attributed to 1 John 4 is actually from Galatians 5:22, indicating a possible conflation or scribal error."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Sic enim habes supra: Quia fructus Spiritus sancti est caritas (I Joan. IV).\n\nCAPUT XV.\n\nDe Trinitate et Verbi divinitate. Si Trinitas non est, quare diotum est: Ite, baptizate omnes gentes, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sanoti? Si unitas non est, quare in uno nomine dictum est, et non in nominibus? Si Trinitas non est, quare dicit Domi nus: Ego sum Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob, Si unitas non est, quare dicit tertio Deus, et non pariter Deos appellavit? St Trinitas non est, quare dicunt in Esaia Seraphim laudantia: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth, ( Esai. VI). Ubi et Trinitatcm ostendunt et unitatem, quia D um dicunt et non deos. Si Trinitas non est, quare dicit Apostolus: Ex ipso, et per ipsum, ct in ipso sunt omnia. Aut si Trinitas non est aut unitas, quare sequitur, ipsi, gloria,. et non ipsis gloria, si p'ures sunt dii i Quod si de Patre hoc volunt aliqui accipere, ergo non calumnienlur Filio, quoniam sicut Pater Filium, sic per Filium facta sunt omnia. Itaque Deus non numeratur, non augetur, non indiget, quia non minuitur. Si Deus est utique Filius, non admittit ista in se, nam ipse dicit ad diabolum tentantem: Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum (Matth. IV). Et Thomas apos tolus dicit, cum palparet loca vulnerum ejus: Donnus meus et Deus meus. Inseparabilis quippe est Trinitas. Neque cuim locutus est ubi non sit.","english":"Thus you have above: Because the fruit of the Holy Spirit is love (1 John 4).\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nOn the Trinity and the Divinity of the Word. If the Trinity does not exist, why was it said: Go, baptize all nations, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? If the unity does not exist, why was it said in one name, and not in names? If the Trinity does not exist, why does the Lord say: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? If the unity does not exist, why does he say \"God\" three times, and not call them \"Gods\" equally? If the Trinity does not exist, why do the Seraphim in Isaiah say in praise: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts (Isaiah 6)? Where they show both the Trinity and the unity, because they say \"Lord\" and not \"lords.\" If the Trinity does not exist, why does the Apostle say: From him, and through him, and in him are all things? Or if the Trinity or the unity does not exist, why does it follow: to him, glory, and not to them, glory, if there are more gods? But if some wish to take this as referring to the Father, then let them not slander the Son, since just as the Father, so through the Son all things were made. Therefore God is not numbered, not increased, not in need, because he is not diminished. If the Son is indeed God, he does not admit these things in himself, for he himself says to the tempting devil: You shall not tempt the Lord your God (Matthew 4). And the apostle Thomas says, when he touched the places of his wounds: My Lord and my God. For the Trinity is inseparable. For he has not spoken where he is not.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XV","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new argumentative section, shifting from scriptural proof of the Spirit's agency to a series of rhetorical questions defending Trinitarian unity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ite, baptizate omnes gentes, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sanoti","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites the baptismal formula from Matthew 28:19, a key proof-text for the coequal naming of the three persons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego sum Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes Exodus 3:6, where God identifies himself to Moses, here used to argue for unity despite triple repetition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth","severity":"info","text":"The Trisagion from Isaiah 6:3 is cited to show both Trinity (three 'Sanctus') and unity (singular 'Dominus').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis adapts Matthew 4:7 (Christ's words to Satan) to assert the Son's divinity, reading 'Dominum Deum tuum' as a title for Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Thomas apostolus dicit, cum palparet loca vulnerum ejus: Donnus meus et Deus meus","severity":"info","text":"The reference is to the apocryphal Acts of Thomas (section 39), where Thomas touches Christ's wounds and exclaims 'My Lord and my God,' used here to affirm the Son's divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Acts of Thomas"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'sanoti' for 'sancti' is a scribal error or variant spelling.","The phrase 'Donnus meus' is likely a scribal error for 'Dominus meus'.","The source of the Thomas citation is not canonical; Cerealis draws on apocryphal tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, ubique simul sunt, nec separantur locis, quia non est corporeus Deus, nec numeratur Dcus, quia non subjicitur numeris, DeuS igitur noster unus est. Nam cum Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus sit, nemo Christianus tres Deos poterit dicere, quia in nullo a se divi. na distat natura. Numerus siquidem ordinem sufficit, aequalitas non amittit, alter enim primum sequitur, aUeri tertius applicatur. Sed cum gradus fieri non possint ex paribus qui. subdi possint quemadmodum numeratur, unus ergo erit, quia non habet secundum. secundus quippe minoris. ordinem tenet, et minor alterum facit, alter posteriorem indicat, posterior imparem signal. Remove distantiam, et quod numeres non habebis. Propheta dicit: Sapientiæ ejus non est numerus. Si sapientia ejus non numeramur, quomodo Filius numeratur, qui est Sapientia Patris, sicut Apostulus dicit? Quare post Patrem scecundus di-. citur Filius, cum sapientia non numeretur, quia est sapientia Patris.","english":"of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are everywhere together, and are not separated by places, because God is not corporeal, nor is God numbered, because He is not subject to numbers. Therefore our God is one. For although there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no Christian can speak of three Gods, because the divine nature in no way differs from itself. Number indeed suffices for order; equality does not lose it, for one follows the first, and another is attached to the third. But since no degrees can arise from equals that can be subordinated, as they are numbered, there will be one, because it has no second. For the second holds the rank of a lesser, and the lesser makes another, the other indicates a later, the later signifies an unequal. Remove the distance, and you will have nothing to number. The prophet says: \"There is no number to His wisdom.\" If His wisdom is not numbered, how is the Son numbered, who is the Wisdom of the Father, as the Apostle says? Why is the Son called second after the Father, since wisdom is not numbered, because it is the wisdom of the Father?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"nec numeratur Dcus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text contains a typographical error: 'Dcus' should read 'Deus'. The sense is that God is not subject to numerical categories.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sapientiæ ejus non est numerus","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Proverbs 5:9 (LXX) or a similar wisdom tradition, though the exact source is not cited. Cerealis uses it to argue that divine wisdom, identified with the Son, cannot be numbered.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Apostulus dicit","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the Apostle likely points to 1 Corinthians 1:24 or Colossians 2:3, where Christ is called 'Wisdom'. Cerealis conflates this with Proverbs to deny numerical subordination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"numerus siquidem ordinem sufficit","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis draws on Neoplatonic and Nicene logic: number implies order and hierarchy, which cannot apply to the equal persons of the Trinity. This argument counters Arian subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus ubique simul sunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the polemical structure of Contra Maximinum, using a series of rhetorical questions and logical deductions to refute Arian claims of numerical gradation in the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nec numeratur Dcus","severity":"caution","text":"The text has a probable scribal error: 'Dcus' for 'Deus'. The sense is clear, but the corruption may affect critical apparatus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural source for 'Sapientiæ ejus non est numerus' is not specified; it may be a loose citation of Proverbs or a lost text.","The phrase 'Apostulus dicit' is vague; the specific Pauline passage is not identified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"CAPUT XVI.\n\nQuia invisibilis est Filius, sic docetur: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare. In Apostolo de Christ scriptum est: Hic invisibilis primogenitus totius creaturre. Item: Christus Jesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere, quorum primus ego sum; sed ideo misericordiam consecutus sum, ut in me primo ostenderet Christus Jesus omnem longanimitatem in formationem eorum qui credituri sunt illi in vitam æternam: regi autem sæculorum immortali, invisibili soli Deo honor et gloria in,sæcula sæculorum. Invisibilis est ergo Filius, qui venit peccatores salvos facere. Si videtur Filius, videtur et Pater, quoniam scriptum est: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem.\n\nCAPUT XVII.\n\nContra id quod dicunt: ex Patre per Filium in Spiritu sancto esse omnia. Audi quia non solum ex Patre, sed et ex Filio, et Spiritu sancto facta omnia invenies dictura. Apostolus ad Ephesios sic dicit de Filio: Veritatem autem facientes in caritate augeamur in illo per omn:a, qui eat caput Christus, ex quo totum corpus connexum et compactum. Ecce ex Filio: andi et ex Spiritu sancto: Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest videre regnum Dei. Et iterum in Evangelio legitur: Sic est omnis qui natus est ex Spiritu.","english":"CHAPTER XVI\n\nThat the Son is invisible is taught thus: No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him. In the Apostle it is written concerning Christ: \"This invisible firstborn of all creation.\" Again: \"Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the first; but I have obtained mercy for this reason, that Christ Jesus might first show in me all patience in the formation of those who will believe in Him for eternal life: but to the immortal, invisible king of the ages, to God alone, honor and glory forever and ever.\" Therefore the Son, who came to save sinners, is invisible. If the Son is seen, the Father is also seen, since it is written: \"He who sees me sees also the Father.\"\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nAgainst what they say: that all things exist from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Hear that you will find it said that not only from the Father, but also from the Son and the Holy Spirit, all things were made. The Apostle says this of the Son in Ephesians: \"But doing the truth in love, let us increase in Him through all things, of which Christ is the head, from whom the whole body is joined and compacted.\" Behold, from the Son. Hear also from the Holy Spirit: \"If anyone has not been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.\" And again in the Gospel it is read: \"Thus is everyone who is born from the Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XVI","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two chapters (XVI and XVII), each addressing a distinct theological point: the invisibility of the Son and the refutation of the claim that all things exist only from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Matthew 11:27, where Jesus says no one knows the Son except the Father, and vice versa, a key prooftext for the Son's invisibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hic invisibilis primogenitus totius creaturre","severity":"info","text":"Likely a conflation of Colossians 1:15 (invisible firstborn) and 1:18 (firstborn of creation), though the exact wording is not canonical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui me videt, videt et Patrem","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of John 14:9, where Jesus says that seeing him is seeing the Father, used here to argue for the Son's visibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to John 3:5, where Jesus says one must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom, used to argue for the Spirit's role in creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Contra id quod dicunt: ex Patre per Filium in Spiritu sancto esse omnia","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis refutes a subordinationist formula that limits creation to the Father alone, asserting instead that all three persons are equally involved.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text in CAPUT XVI contains a non-canonical scripture citation ('Hic invisibilis primogenitus totius creaturre') that may be a conflation or a variant reading.","The phrase 'in formationem eorum' in the same chapter is grammatically awkward and may be a scribal error or a non-standard Latin construction."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":", CAPUТ XVIII.\n\nContra id quod dicunt: Quia Pater perhibet testimonium Filio. Ipse Christus dicit in Evangelio: Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de me. Ergo ipse testificatur de se. Prophetae perhibuerunt Filio testimonium, nunquid majores sunt prophetæ Filio? Apostoli perhibuerunt testimonium Filio, nunquid majores sunt apostoli Filio Dei? Sed cum ostenderim quia ipse sibi perhibuit testimonium, non erit quod ab adversariis respondeatur: Ego sum, inquit Fil.us, qui testificor de me.\n\nCAPUT XIX.\n\nContra id quod dicunt: Quare prius Pater, deinde Filius nominatur. Audi et Filium priorem nominari a Patre. Apostolus. dicit ad Galalas: Non ab hominibuS, neque per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum et Deum Patrem. Item ad Thessalonicenses ipse dicit: Ipse autem Dominus noster Jesus Christus et Deus Pater noster, qui dilexit nos, et dedit consolationem æternam, etc. Ecce prior est Filius nominatus. Audi et Spiritum sanctum priori loco nominari. Apostolus dicit. Unum corpus et unus Spiritus, sicut vocati estis in uno spe vocationis vestræ, unus Deus, una fides, unum baptisma, unus Deus et Pater omnium. Ecce prius Spiritum, et poster Patrem nominavit. Sed dico, nunquid quia legimus in Levitico proprio loco sub una sententi a nominatum Jucoh, secundo Isaac, tertio Abraham.","english":"CHAPTER XVIII.\n\nAgainst what they say: \"Because the Father bears witness to the Son.\" Christ Himself says in the Gospel: \"I am the one who bears witness concerning myself.\" Therefore He Himself testifies concerning Himself. The Prophets bore witness to the Son; are the Prophets greater than the Son? The Apostles bore witness to the Son; are the Apostles greater than the Son of God? But since I have shown that He Himself bore witness concerning Himself, there will be nothing for the adversaries to reply: \"I am,\" says the Son, \"who testify concerning myself.\"\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nAgainst what they say: \"Why is the Father named first, then the Son?\" Hear that the Son is also named first by the Father. The Apostle says to the Galatians: \"Not by men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.\" Likewise to the Thessalonians he himself says: \"But our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who loved us and gave eternal consolation,\" etc. Behold, the Son is named first. Hear also that the Holy Spirit is named in the first place. The Apostle says: \"One body and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling, one God, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.\" Behold, he named the Spirit first, and the Father afterwards. But I say, is it because we read in Leviticus, in its proper place, under one sentence, Jacob named first, Isaac second, Abraham third?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XVIII","severity":"info","text":"The passage consists of two chapters (XVIII and XIX), each introduced by a heading that states the opponent's argument to be refuted. This structure is typical of Cerealis's polemical method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de me","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'I am the one who bears witness concerning myself' is not a direct biblical quotation but a summary of Christ's self-testimony, possibly alluding to John 8:18 or 5:31, where Jesus speaks of his own witness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"per Jesum Christum et Deum Patrem","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'through Jesus Christ and God the Father' is not a verbatim verse from Galatians; it may be a loose paraphrase of Galatians 1:1 or 1:15, where Paul distinguishes Christ and God the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Unum corpus et unus Spiritus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'one body and one Spirit' echoes 1 Corinthians 12:13 or Ephesians 4:4, but the surrounding text ('as you are called in one hope of your calling') is not a direct quotation; it may be a conflation of Pauline passages.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Jucoh, secundo Isaac, tertio Abraham","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham in Leviticus is obscure; no such sequence appears in the Vulgate Leviticus. This may be a textual corruption or a reference to a lost source, possibly a liturgical or patristic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Jucoh","severity":"caution","text":"The name 'Jucoh' is likely a scribal error for 'Jacob' (Iacob), as the context lists patriarchs. The Latin text may have been miscopied in transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scriptural citations in chapters XVIII and XIX are paraphrastic and not verbatim, making identification of specific verses uncertain.","The reference to Leviticus naming Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham is unclear and may be corrupt or based on a non-canonical source."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"ideo dicendum est meliorem fuisse Jacob ab Isaac, aut majorem Isaac Abraham patre suo, sicut enim scriptum est: Et me moi abortestamenti Jacob, dicit Dominus, et testamenti Isaac, et testamenti Abraham. Hominibus non præjudicatis, taxatio Deo præjudicium cur infert, si forte alicul i prior taxatur Pater a Filio, aut Filius a Spiriw saocto pr.ori loco aPatre taxatum.\n\nCAPUT XX.\n\nContra id, quod dicunt: Pater illi omnia subjecit. Apostolus ad Corinthios dicit de Filio: Oporlet, inquit,. illum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos suos sub pedibus suis (Cor. xv). Et ad Philippenses: Unde etiam exspectamus Dominum Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; qui transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostræ conformans corpori gloriæ suæ secundum operationem, ut' possit sibi subjicere omnia (Philip. i). Item Apostolus dicit, quia Filius tradet regnum Deo Patri suo; scriptum est enim de Christo: Cum trudiderit regnum Deo et Patri. Ergo major est Filius a Patre, quia ipse tradet Patri suo regnum? Hæc sunt quae tantisper commemorare Potui et decerpsi; multa au-, tem praetennissa sunt impedimento velocitatis, quæ legens poterit invenire. Hoc tantum lector teneat, Dominum Deum minime numero subjacere, minime separari: quod enim minimum est, Deus non est: sed quod Deus est, Filius, et Spiritus sanctus uterque perfectus [ professus] est.","english":"Therefore it must be said that Jacob was better than Isaac, or Isaac greater than his father Abraham, just as it is written: \"And I, the God of Jacob, say this, and of the testament of Isaac, and of the testament of Abraham.\" To unprejudiced men, why does a ranking impose prejudice upon God, if by chance the Father is ranked before the Son, or the Son before the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit ranked before the Father?\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nAgainst what they say: \"The Father subjected all things to Him.\" The Apostle says to the Corinthians concerning the Son: \"He must,\" he says, \"reign until He places all His enemies under His feet\" (1 Cor. 15). And to the Philippians: \"Whence also we await our Lord Jesus Christ our Savior, who will transform the body of our humility, conforming it to the body of His glory according to the operation, so that He may be able to subject all things to Himself\" (Phil. 1). Likewise the Apostle says that the Son will deliver the kingdom to God His Father; for it is written concerning Christ: \"When He has delivered the kingdom to God and Father.\" Therefore is the Son greater than the Father, because He Himself will deliver the kingdom to His Father? These are the things which I have been able to recall and excerpt for the time being; many things, however, have been omitted due to the hindrance of speed, which the reader will be able to find. Let the reader hold only this: that the Lord God is in no way subject to number, in no way separated; for what is least is not God: but what is God, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each is perfect [professed].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAPUT XX","severity":"info","text":"The chapter heading marks a new argument against the Arian claim that the Father subjected all things to the Son. The structure follows the pattern of earlier chapters: a short thesis, scriptural citations, and a concluding doctrinal assertion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Oporlet, inquit,. illum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos suos sub pedibus suis (Cor. xv)","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites 1 Corinthians 15:25-26, where Paul speaks of Christ reigning until he has put all enemies under his feet. The Latin text loosely adapts the Vetus Latina version.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Unde etiam exspectamus Dominum Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; qui transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostræ conformans corpori gloriæ suæ secundum operatione","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites Philippians 3:20-21, referring to Christ's transformation of believers' bodies and his power to subject all things. The citation is composite and reflects the Vetus Latina tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Cum trudiderit regnum Deo et Patri","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes 1 Corinthians 15:24, where Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father. The Latin wording is non-standard and may reflect a variant Old Latin reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"professus","severity":"caution","text":"The edition notes a variant: 'professus' may be a scribal error for 'perfectus' (perfect). The sense requires that both Son and Holy Spirit are declared perfect, not merely professed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hæc sunt quae tantisper commemorare Potui et decerpsi; multa autem praetennissa sunt impedimento velocitatis","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis apologizes for the brevity of his scriptural citations, citing haste. This rhetorical modesty is typical of late antique polemical tracts and signals that the work is an epitome of a longer argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of the scripture citations is sometimes paraphrastic and may not correspond exactly to known Vulgate or Vetus Latina readings.","The phrase 'professus' in the final sentence is textually uncertain; the intended reading is likely 'perfectus'."],"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":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Hæc est autem vera perfectio, quam nOli subjicit alterius comparatio, nec remanet quod possit accrescere. Deus spiritus est, non caro; intellectus est, non est globatio; internum lumen eSI, non materies circumfusa. Ideo nn dividitur Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, quia non est 'atis qui se paret incidi; et tamen Pater, Paler est; Filius, Filius est; Spiritus sanctus, Spiritus sauclus est; et ubique sinc invicem non sunt: quia unus est qui intelligi potest, separari non potest. Non sunt conglobati, quia non sunt velut ærei; non sunt divisi, quia sine invicem non sunt. Hæc est ve a ei catholica fides, quam Christus docuit et tradidit, apostoli docuerunt, et omnes sancti patriarchæ et prophet.c fideliter cecinerunt. Propositionibus tuis juvante Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto, de Novo et Veteri Testamento respondi, nunc vero pro catholica, quæ ubique est fide, alia testimonia proposui, quibus respondere debeas. In libro Sapientiæ: quia sicut Deus sapientia, quæ cst Filius Dei, sic et Spiritus sanctus novit consilia Patris. In codem libro: quia omnipotens est Filius, pcr quem fac:a sunt omnia, In eodem libro: quia Spirtus sanctus ctiain Filius, qui dicitur. virtus Dei. In codem libro dicitur de Spiritu sancto, qui incorruptibilis est.","english":"This, however, is the true perfection, which no comparison of another thing subjects, nor does anything remain that could be added. God is spirit, not flesh; He is intellect, not a mass; He is inner light, not surrounding matter. Therefore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not divided, because there is no matter that could be cut; and yet the Father is Father, the Son is Son, the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit; and they are everywhere not without each other: because He is one who can be understood, but cannot be separated. They are not conglomerated, because they are not like airy bodies; they are not divided, because they are not without each other. This is the true Catholic faith, which Christ taught and handed down, the apostles taught, and all the holy patriarchs and prophets faithfully proclaimed. To your propositions, with the help of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I have responded from the New and Old Testament; now, however, for the Catholic faith, which is everywhere, I have set forth other testimonies to which you must respond. In the book of Wisdom: because just as God is wisdom, which is the Son of God, so also the Holy Spirit knows the counsels of the Father. In the same book: because the Son, through whom all things are made, is omnipotent. In the same book: because the Holy Spirit is also called Son, who is called the power of God. In the same book it is said of the Holy Spirit, who is incorruptible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Hæc est autem vera perfectio","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis defines true perfection as that which is not subject to comparison and admits no addition, a theological claim about the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"non est globatio","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'globatio' (mass) is rare; Cerealis uses it to deny that God is a material aggregate, contrasting with 'conglobati' later.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In libro Sapientiæ","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis cites the Book of Wisdom (a deuterocanonical book) three times, attributing to it statements about the Son as wisdom and the Holy Spirit as knowing the Father's counsels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"catholica fides","severity":"info","text":"Cerealis appeals to the 'catholic faith' as universal and apostolic, a standard polemical move against Arianism to claim orthodox tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Propositionibus tuis ... respondi","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a transition: Cerealis concludes his responses to Maximinus's propositions and now presents his own testimonies from Wisdom.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus sanctus etiam Filius","severity":"caution","text":"The claim that the Holy Spirit is 'also called Son' is unusual and may reflect a misreading or a variant text of Wisdom; it is not standard Catholic doctrine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has several typographical errors (e.g., 'nOli' for 'nulli', 'eSI' for 'est', 'nn' for 'non', 'atis' for 'aliquid', 'paret' for 'parat', 'sauclus' for 'sanctus', 've a ei' for 'vera et'), which the English draft corrects silently.","The citation from Wisdom that the Holy Spirit is 'also called Son' is ambiguous and may be a corruption or a non-canonical source."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"In eodem libro: secundum formam susceptae humilitatis visibilem dicit Christum, secundum formam vero deitatis non visibilem, sed invisi bilcm pronuntiat. Quod enim videtur, homo, quod non videt ur, Deus agnoscitur. In codem libro dicitur quia Filius Dei de substantia est Patris. In Cantico Canticorum, ubi Christum dicit es e Regem, cum ad eum Ecclesia loquitur. In Ecclesiastico: qu a innumerabitis est magnitudo Dei. Unde docetur quia blasphemi sunt qui Trinitatem separando, ac gradibus et numeris credunt esse suardendam. In psalmo CXVII similiter de Sapientia, quæ est Filius Dei, sic et Spiritus sanctus novit consilia Patris: Consilium autem tuum quis scit, niti tu dederis Sapientiam, et miseris Spiritum de altissimis? In eodem libro quia omnipotens est Filius, per quem facta sunt omnia: Non enim, inquit, impossibilis erat omnipotens manus tua, quæ creavit omn a, et orbem terrarum ex materia informi. In eodem libro: quia Spiritus sanctus etiam Filius est: dispersi per Spiritum sanctum virtutis tuae persecutionem passi ab ipsis factis suis. In eodem libro de Spiritu sancto quia incorruptibilis est: Incorruptibilis enim Spiritus tuus in omnibus est. In eodem libro, ubi secundum formam susceptæ humilitatis visibilem dicit Christum, secundum formam vero deitatis non visibilem, sed invisibilem pronuntiat dicens: Videntes illum quem olim negabant, Deum agnoverunt verum.","english":"In the same book: he says that Christ is visible according to the form of the humility He assumed, but according to the form of His divinity He is not visible, but pronounces Him invisible. For what is seen is the man; what is not seen is acknowledged as God. In the same book it is said that the Son of God is from the substance of the Father. In the Song of Songs, where he says Christ is the King, when the Church speaks to him. In Ecclesiasticus: that the magnitude of God is innumerable. From this it is taught that those who separate the Trinity and believe it is to be worshipped in degrees and numbers are blasphemers. In Psalm 117, similarly concerning Wisdom, which is the Son of God, and likewise the Holy Spirit knows the counsels of the Father: \"But who knows your counsel, unless you give Wisdom and send the Spirit from the highest?\" In the same book, that the Son is omnipotent, through whom all things were made: \"For,\" he says, \"your omnipotent hand was not impossible, which created all things and the orb of the earth from formless matter.\" In the same book: that the Holy Spirit is also the Son: \"scattered through the Holy Spirit of your power, they suffered persecution from their own deeds.\" In the same book concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is incorruptible: \"For your Spirit is incorruptible in all things.\" In the same book, where he says that Christ is visible according to the form of the humility He assumed, but according to the form of His divinity He is not visible, but pronounces Him invisible, saying: \"Seeing Him whom they once denied, they acknowledged Him as true God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a catena of excerpts from an unidentified book, likely a lost anti-Arian work, citing various biblical books to argue for the Son's visibility in humanity and invisibility in divinity, and for the consubstantiality of the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Canticum Canticorum","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the Song of Songs (Canticum Canticorum) where Christ is called King and the Church speaks to him is likely an allusion to Song 3:11 or similar, but the exact verse is not quoted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecclesiasticus","severity":"info","text":"The citation from Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) about the magnitude of God being innumerable is not a direct quote but a paraphrase; it may echo Sirach 43:27 or similar.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psalm 117","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 117 is a non-canonical psalm in the Septuagint (Psalm 118 in the Vulgate). The quoted verse about Wisdom and the Spirit is not found in the standard Psalter; it may be from a lost or apocryphal source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"invisibilem","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'invisibilem' (invisible) is misspelled as 'invisi bilcm' in the manuscript, indicating a scribal error or transmission corruption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The repeated phrase 'In eodem libro' (In the same book) suggests a single source, but the identity of this book is uncertain; it may be a lost work of Hilary of Poitiers or Ambrose, but no citation is given.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'same book' repeatedly cited is unknown; it may be a lost anti-Arian treatise.","The quotation from Psalm 117 is not found in the standard Psalter, suggesting a non-canonical or variant text.","The phrase 'Spiritus sanctus etiam Filius est' (the Holy Spirit is also the Son) is ambiguous and may reflect a Sabellian or modalist interpretation, though the author likely intends to assert consubstantiality."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"In codem libro: quia Filius Dei de substantia est Patris: Pro quibus angelorum esca cibasti populum tuum, et paratum panem de cœlo præstitisti illis sine labore, omne delectamentum in se habentem, et omnis saporis suavitatem; substantiam enim tuam et dulcedinem quas in Filio habeas ostendebas. In Evangelio secundum Joannem: quia invisibilis cst Spiritus sanctus: Spiritus raritatis, quem mundus non potest accipere, quia mundus non videt eum, nec cognoscit eum: I vos autem cognoscitis eum, quia apud os manebit, et in vobis erit. In Canticis Christum dicit esse Regem; cum Ecclesiam loquitur: Introduxit me rex in cubiculum suum, exsultemus et jucundemur in te. Item similitudines auri faciemus tibi cum distinctioni' us argenti, quousque rex sit in recubitu suo. In Ecclesiastico: quia innumerabilis est magnitudo Iri. Unde docetur quam blasphemi sint in Trinitatem Dei qui separando grad bus ac numeris suadenda æstimant: et quis investigavit magnitudinis ejus imperium, er magnitudinem ejus quis denumeravit? In psalmo XI VIr, similiter de Sapientia, quæ est Filius Dei, dictum est: quia sapientiæ ejus norr est numerus: Magnus Dominus noster, et magna virtus ejus, et sapientæ ejus non est numerus. Propositionibus istis Maximimis Arionita nihil valens ad respondendum, differebat de die in diem.","english":"In the same book: that the Son of God is of the substance of the Father: For which things you fed your people with the food of angels, and you furnished them with prepared bread from heaven without labor, having in itself every delight and the sweetness of every flavor; for you were showing your substance and sweetness which you have in the Son. In the Gospel according to John: that the Holy Spirit is invisible: The Spirit of rarity, whom the world cannot receive, because the world does not see him, nor know him: but you know him, because he will remain with you, and will be in you. In the Song of Songs he says that Christ is King; when he speaks to the Church: The king led me into his chamber, let us exult and rejoice in you. Likewise we will make for you likenesses of gold with distinctions of silver, until the king is in his resting place. In Ecclesiasticus: that the magnitude of the Trinity is innumerable. Whence it is taught how blasphemous are those against the Trinity of God who, separating by degrees and numbers, think to persuade what they desire: and who has investigated the command of his magnitude, or who has numbered his magnitude? In Psalm 146, similarly concerning Wisdom, which is the Son of God, it is said: because his wisdom has no number: Our Lord is great, and his power is great, and his wisdom has no number. With these propositions Maximinus the Arian, having nothing of value to answer, kept putting it off from day to day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In Canticis Christum dicit esse Regem","severity":"info","text":"The citation from the Song of Songs (Canticum Canticorum) is not a direct biblical verse but a paraphrase, likely referencing Song 1:4 or 3:7, where the king is a type of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In Ecclesiastico: quia innumerabilis est magnitudo Trinitatis","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) is not a direct quotation; it may allude to Sirach 1:9 or 18:4, which speak of God's greatness, but the phrase 'magnitudo Trinitatis' is Cerealis's own theological application.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In psalmo CXLVI","severity":"info","text":"Psalm 146 in the Septuagint/Vulgate numbering corresponds to Psalm 147 in the Hebrew numbering; the quoted line 'sapientiae eius non est numerus' is not found verbatim in that psalm, suggesting a loose citation or conflation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maximinus Arionita","severity":"info","text":"Maximinus the Arian (Arionita) is the opponent Cerealis refutes; the name 'Arionita' is a variant spelling of 'Arianus', reflecting the polemical context of the 5th-century Arian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Propositionibus istis Maximinus Arionita nihil valens ad respondendum","severity":"info","text":"This concluding sentence marks the end of Cerealis's series of scriptural proofs, summarizing Maximinus's inability to reply and framing the passage as a narrative of debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus raritatis","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'Spirit of rarity' is unusual and may reflect a mistranslation or corruption; it could derive from a Greek term like 'πνεῦμα λεπτόν' (subtle spirit), but the Latin is obscure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the quotation about 'food of angels' and 'prepared bread from heaven' is unclear; it may be from a lost Arian or patristic work, not a canonical book.","The phrase 'Spiritus raritatis' is ambiguous: it could mean 'Spirit of rarity' or 'Spirit of thinness', and its theological import is uncertain.","The citation from Psalm 146 does not match the Vulgate text exactly, leaving the intended verse uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Cerealis vero dixit illi, qui intrerat, cui erat injunctum: Propositis ab eo quæ tionibus adjuvante Deo respondi, cur meis propositionibus non respondet? Supra memoratum igitur Maximinum, cui erat injunctum, cum conveniret, tacuit. Et ait Cereali: Vade tibi in propriam Ecclesiam, quia conventus a me Maximinus noluit respondere, hinc intelligitur quia non valuit, ubi tacuit, et luis propositionibus respondere noluit. Jam inter vos Deus audit.","english":"Cerealis, however, said to him who had entered, to whom the task had been assigned: \"To the questions proposed by him, with God's help, I have responded; why does he not respond to my propositions?\" Therefore, the aforementioned Maximinus, to whom the task had been assigned, when the assembly met, remained silent. And he said to Cerealis: \"Go to your own church, because the assembly convened by me, Maximinus, refused to respond; from this it is understood that he was unable, where he was silent, and he refused to respond to your propositions. Now God hears between you.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Cerealis vero dixit illi, qui intrerat, cui erat injunctum","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from theological argument to a narrative account of the disputation's conclusion, reporting Cerealis' challenge and Maximinus' silence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"injunctum","severity":"info","text":"The repeated phrase 'cui erat injunctum' (to whom the task had been assigned) likely refers to Maximinus' role as the designated respondent in the debate, possibly a formal appointment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"conventus","severity":"info","text":"The term 'conventus' (assembly) indicates a formal ecclesiastical gathering, likely a synod or council, where the theological disputation between Cerealis and Maximinus took place.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Jam inter vos Deus audit","severity":"info","text":"The closing phrase 'Now God hears between you' echoes a formulaic appeal to divine judgment, common in early Christian polemical literature to conclude unresolved debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"qui intrerat","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'qui intrerat' is irregular; it may be a scribal error for 'qui intraverat' (who had entered) or a colloquial form. The sense is clear but the grammar is non-classical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'illi, qui intrerat' (him who had entered) is unclear; it may refer to Maximinus or another participant.","The phrase 'luis propositionibus' appears to be a scribal error for 'tuis propositionibus' (your propositions), as the context demands."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}