A theological dialogue defending Chalcedonian Christology against Monophysite objections, written during the critical period surrounding the Council of Chalcedon (451). Presents the orthodox doctrine of Christ's two natures in one person through a debate between Arnobius (representing Rome) and Serapion (representing Egyptian Monophysites).

Historical Context and Authorship

Authorship and Date: Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno (often titled Conflictus Arnobii Catholici cum Serapione Aegyptio) is traditionally attributed to Arnobius the Younger , a 5th-century Latin priest and theologian la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org. Arnobius “Junior” flourished circa 455 A.D., distinguishing him from the earlier Arnobius of Sicca (3rd–4th c.) en.wikisource.org . Modern scholarship, however, questions this attribution. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the Conflictus is “entirely Augustinian in spirit,” making it unlikely to be penned by the same Arnobius who wrote a Psalms commentary with Semipelagian leanings (critiquing St. Augustine’s doctrine of grace) en.wikisource.org en.wikisource.org. Indeed, Arnobius’s Psalm commentary (c. 460) contains open tilts at Augustine’s ideas on predestination, whereas the Conflictus enthusiastically endorses Augustine en.wikisource.org . This disparity has led some scholars to propose separate authors. The Conflictus itself gives no author’s name beyond identifying its protagonist as “a priest of the Roman Church”. Early scholars often assumed Arnobius Junior wrote it (hence its inclusion in Patrologia Latina vol. 53 alongside his other works), but a consensus now leans toward an anonymous Latin theologian , likely a monk in Rome en.wikisource.org .

Date and Setting: Internal evidence and historical context place the work in the mid-5th century. The dialogue’s overriding concern is the Christological controversy between the orthodox (Catholic/Chalcedonian) position and Monophysite teachings predominant in Egypt after the Council of Ephesus (431) and leading up to Chalcedon (451). One Brill source estimates it was composed between 449 and 451 , on the eve of Chalcedon (when debates over Christ’s natures were at fever pitch). The text itself references no specific date but depicts a formal disputation between representatives of the “apostolic see” (Rome) and the “synod of the Egyptians” la.wikisource.org . This mirrors real events: after 451, the Egyptian (Alexandrian) Church rejected the Council of Chalcedon’s two-nature doctrine, creating a schism. The Conflictus seems designed to defend the Roman-Chalcedonian stance against an Egyptian Monophysite interlocutor. The dialogue format is fictional (there is no record of an actual Arnobius vs. Serapion debate), but it likely draws on the atmosphere of theological disputations happening in that era.

Dramatis Personae: The work is cast as a debate between Arnobius , speaking for the Catholic (Chalcedonian) faith on behalf of the Roman Church, and Serapion , speaking for the “Egyptians” (i.e. those accused of Monophysitism). Two judges, one from each side (Constantius for the Catholics, Ammonius for the Egyptians), preside la.wikisource.org . This setup underscores the text’s aim: to prove the orthodoxy of the Roman position and demonstrate continuity with the faith of the Eastern Church fathers (especially Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria en.wikisource.org ). Notably, the name Serapion may allude to Egyptian bishops or monks (there were historical Serapions in Egypt), lending realism to the scenario. By invoking “sedis apostolicae” (the Apostolic See) for his side la.wikisource.org , Arnobius grounds his authority in Rome’s primacy, while portraying Serapion as from the “synedrio Aegyptiorum” – the council of Egyptian dissidents la.wikisource.org .

Doctrinal Controversies Addressed: Two great doctrinal battles of the 4th–5th centuries frame the dialogue’s content – Trinitarian and Christological theology. The title “De Deo trino et uno” (“Concerning God Three and One”) hints that both the Trinity (Deo trino) and the *unity of God (Deo uno) are in view. In practice, the dialogue focuses heavily on Christology : specifically, refuting the Monophysite claim that asserting “two natures in Christ” is heretical. The Egyptian accusers derisively label the Roman party “Homuncionates” , implying they preach a “little man” (homunculus) in Christ separate from His divinity la.wikisource.org . This was a slur Monophysites used against Dyophysites (two-nature believers), akin to accusing them of Nestorianism (splitting Christ into a human person and a divine person). Thus, Arnobius must defend the doctrine that Christ is one person in two natures (divine and human) without falling into the extremes of either Nestorian “two Sons” or Eutychian “one nature” heresies. Along the way, the dialogue also touches on earlier heresies – Sabellianism , Arianism , Photinianism , Apollinarianism , etc. – demonstrating how the true Catholic position steers a middle course, preserving both divine unity and the reality of the Incarnation.

In summary, the Conflictus is set in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon (451) or its run-up, authored by a Latin theologian deeply loyal to St. Leo the Great (pope 440–461). Its purpose is apologetic and unifying: to show that the faith of Rome concerning the Trinity and Christ’s two natures is the same faith taught by Scripture and the revered Fathers (like Athanasius, Cyril, Augustine), over against misunderstandings from the Alexandrian (Egyptian) side.

Structure and Key Theological Arguments (Liber Primus)

The work is divided into two books (Liber Primus and Liber Secundus). Liber Primus establishes fundamental points of agreement and then delves into the Incarnation debate, often in a rapid back-and-forth catechetical style. Arnobius and Serapion alternate in a question-and-answer format, which allows Arnobius to systematically lay out orthodox teaching while addressing Serapion’s challenges.

Monotheism and the Trinity

The debate opens with common ground: monotheism. Serapion asks Arnobius to declare his faith. Arnobius responds with the basic creed: “Deum omnipotentem, omnium creatorem, unum credo” – “I believe in one God, almighty, creator of all things” la.wikisource.org . Serapion agrees that the God Arnobius worships – the God of Israel – is one and almighty. By beginning here, the dialogue shows that Catholics and Monophysites shared belief in one God. Serapion even insists they move past points on which their faiths “concordant” la.wikisource.org .

However, immediately the unity of God leads to the question of the Trinity : If God is one, how do Christians also speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Serapion probes whether Arnobius’s monotheism is “too Jewish” – “Ergo Judaica est tenenda assertio, qua solus et unus Deus Hebraeorum praedicatur?” (“So must we hold the Jewish claim that the one God of the Hebrews alone is to be preached?”) la.wikisource.org . This gives Arnobius an opening to explain the Christian understanding of one God in three persons. He answers that the Hebrews (Jews) indeed insist on one God “so as to deny His Son.” In contrast, Christians confess the Father and Son are one God without denying the Son’s divine birth: “Deum Judaei sic praedicant solum, ut negent Filium eius…negent simul cum eo unum esse, qui natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine ” (“The Jews proclaim God to be one in such a way that they deny His Son; they deny that the One who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary is one with Him”) la.wikisource.org . Here Arnobius introduces the Incarnation: the Son of God was born of Mary by the Holy Spirit. The pressing question follows: Is this Son the same God as the Father, or “another” God?

Arnobius’s answer is a nuanced articulation of Trinitarian unity-in-distinction : “In Deitate unus, in generatione vero sic est alius, ut Deus unus esse non cesset Pater et Filius” – “In divinity He (the Son) is one (with the Father), but in generation He is in a certain sense another, such that Father and Son do not cease to be one God.” la.wikisource.org . In other words, with respect to the divine nature (in deitate), the Father and Son are one God (consubstantial), but with respect to their persons (in generatione – the Father begetting, the Son begotten), they are distinct. Arnobius immediately adds: “Deus enim tunc vere unus creditur et integra in eo Divinitas non negatur, si Pater cum Filio et Spiritu sanctoDeus unus penitus non negatur” – God is truly believed to be one, and His divinity remains intact, only if one does not deny that the Father with the Son and Holy Spirit is one God la.wikisource.org .

This statement is crucial: it upholds Trinitarian consubstantiality (one God with three persons). Yet Serapion seizes on the wording and accuses Arnobius of Sabellianism – the heresy of modalism which collapses Father, Son, and Spirit into one person. “Eliciens me de synagoga… in Sabellii me insaniam induxisti” , Serapion complains: “Dragging me out of the synagogue, you have led me into the madness of Sabellius, who confesses one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit ” la.wikisource.org . In other words, your insistence on one God sounds like Sabellius’s idea that Father, Son, Spirit are identical.

Arnobius firmly rejects the Sabellian misunderstanding. He clarifies that Sabellius in fact denied the distinct Son and Spirit, which is not true monotheism but a rejection of God’s self-revelation. “Si vere unum Deum diceret Sabellius, Filium eius et Spiritum sanctum non negaret” – “If Sabellius truly spoke of one God, he would not deny the Son and Holy Spirit” la.wikisource.org . One who denies the true Son, Arnobius says, “negat enim verum Patrem” – “truly denies the Father as well” la.wikisource.org . For Arnobius, to have one God, one must confess the Son and Spirit within that Godhead ; otherwise, one has a false unity. This exchange sets important parameters: Arnobius positions the Catholic doctrine against both Jewish-unitarian and Sabellian extremes. The one God is a Trinity of persons – neither a solitary monad nor a shape-shifting single person. With Sabellianism dispatched, the stage is set to discuss how this one God became incarnate in Christ.

Christ’s Two Natures: Against Eutychian/Monophysite Error

The heart of Liber Primus is a sustained argument for the two natures of Christ (divine and human) united in one person , countering the Monophysite objection that this amounts to worshipping a “second God” or a mere man. Early on, Serapion voices the crux of the controversy: he calls Arnobius and his fellows “Homuncionates” (perhaps “ little-man worshipers ” or similar) for “dicentes, duas naturas esse in Christo, duasque substantias” – “saying that there are two natures in Christ and two substances” la.wikisource.org . The term likely mocks the idea that the humanity of Christ is something diminutive or separate that Chalcedonians supposedly adore alongside God. This reflects the Monophysite fear that acknowledging two full natures (especially a complete human nature) in Christ could lead to ditheism or Nestorianism (two Sons). Arnobius’s task is to show that one can confess two natures without dividing Christ’s person or compromising monotheism.

Arnobius begins by firmly confessing Christ’s divinity in unity with the Father (as we saw above) while also affirming the reality of Christ’s humanity. He makes a critical distinction in terminology: nature (substance) vs. person. The Father and Son share one nature (the divine essence), but are distinct persons ; conversely, in the Incarnation, the Son took on a second nature (human nature), but remains a single person. This distinction undergirds all his arguments.

At the climax of Liber Primus, Arnobius offers a concise creedal statement of the Catholic position, closely mirroring the language of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and earlier Church formulations. He declares the faith of the Roman Church as follows:

  • There is “unum Dei Filium ex duabus substantiis perfectis et integerrimis” – one Son of God from two perfect and intact substances (i.e. fully God and fully man) la.wikisource.org .

  • These two substances are described in contrasting pairs – “ex visibili et invisibili, ex corporeo et incorporeo, ex comprehensibili et incomprehensibili, ex passibili et impassibili, ex mortali et immortali” – from the visible and the invisible , the bodily and the bodiless, the comprehensible and the incomprehensible, the passible (able to suffer) and the impassible, the mortal and the immortal la.wikisource.org . This poetic parallelism drives home that in Christ both sets of attributes are present: everything proper to humanity (visibility, body, passibility, mortality) and everything proper to divinity (invisibility, spiritual incorporeality, impassibility, immortality).

  • Thus Christ is “ex vero Deo et vero homine” – of true God and true man la.wikisource.org . He is one person who is God in the flesh (God manifested in human nature) and at the same time man glorified in the Father’s presence. Arnobius says “fateamur, dicentes, et credentes Deum in Christo, et Christum Jesum in gloria Patris ita unam Deitatem habere” – “we confess and believe that God [is] in Christ, and Christ Jesus in the glory of the Father, to have one Deity” la.wikisource.org . In other words, the Godhead of Father and Son is one and the same, even as Christ now exists in glory as the God-Man.

To illustrate how two distinct natures can unite in one person, Arnobius employs vivid analogies from human sensory experience. “Sicut in duobus oculis unus aspectus est, in duabus auribus unus auditus, in geminis naribus unus odoratus est” – “Just as in two eyes there is one sight, in two ears one hearing, in twin nostrils one smell” la.wikisource.org – “ita et in his duabus substantiis Dei et hominis unus Filius est Dei” – “so also in these two substances of God and man, there is one Son of God”la.wikisource.org . This clever analogy points to organs that are double (we have two eyes, two ears, two nostrils) but yield a single sense or perception. Likewise, Christ’s divine and human natures, though distinct and “double” in a certain regard, unite to constitute one conscious personal subject , one Son acting through both. The analogies would not have been taken as a strict scientific explanation, but pastorally, they helped the audience grasp unity in duality.

Arnobius then explicitly links this Christological mystery to the Trinity as a parallel concept – but in mirror image. He states: “Nunc tibi… non una substantia, sed una in duabus substantiis esse credenda persona, non videatur incongruum” – “Now, for you, it should not seem incongruous to believe not [just] one substance, but one person in two substances ” la.wikisource.org . He continues: “nisus enim sum ostendere hoc, ut sicutin tribus personis una… substantia , ita in duabus substantiis… una Filii Dei persona ” – “for I have endeavored to show this: that just as in three persons we believe there to be one substance, so in two substances (of God and man) we believe there to be one person of the Son of God.” la.wikisource.org . This is a powerful formulation. Arnobius draws an analogy between the Trinity and the Incarnation :

  • In the Trinity, we have three WHO (persons) in one WHAT (essence).

  • In Christ, we have one WHO (person) in two WHATs (natures).

By invoking this symmetry, Arnobius reassures that believing in a complex Christ (two natures/one person) is no more illogical than believing in a complex Godhead (three persons/one essence). Both are mysteries of Christian faith that avoid simple unity or division.

Serapion, by the end of Book I, has heard the orthodox position: Christ is one divine person who has assumed a complete human nature, and remains one with the Father and Holy Spirit as the one God. Liber Primus thus firmly rejects Eutychian/Monophysite claims that Christ’s humanity was absorbed or that speaking of “two” anything in Christ implies dualism. It also rejects Nestorian claims by stressing the one person of Christ (illustrated by the single sight from two eyes, etc.).

It is worth noting that Arnobius’s language resonates with the formal definition that would come from Chalcedon (451) : “unus et idem Christus… in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter” – one and the same Christ… in two natures, without confusion or change (against Eutyches) and without division or separation (against Nestorius). The Conflictus anticipates these balances, indicating the author’s awareness of the theological currents leading to Chalcedon.

Structure and Key Theological Arguments (Liber Secundus)

Liber Secundus picks up the next day (the dialogue is cast over two days la.wikisource.org ) and deals with remaining questions, especially Scriptural difficulties that heretics often raised. If Book I set forth the doctrine in positive terms, Book II is more defensive, clarifying how biblical statements about Christ fit the two-nature model. In particular, Arnobius tackles a classic Arian proof-text which could also trouble the two-natures doctrine if misunderstood: John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” By resolving this, Arnobius solidifies how Christ’s human lowliness coexists with His divine equality.

Christ’s Statements of Inferiority (John 14:28) in Light of Two Natures

Serapion introduces the issue as “una quaestio evangelica… quam Arius videtur habere palmarem” – “one Gospel question remains, the one Arius seems to think is his trump card” la.wikisource.org . Arians (in the 4th century) had argued that Jesus’s words “the Father is greater than I” prove the Son is inferior to the Father in nature. Serapion, though a Monophysite and not an Arian, presses this point—perhaps to see if Arnobius’s explanation of two natures can withstand Scriptural scrutiny: “Me quid culpant dicentem, Pater maior me est (Joan. XIV, 28)… cum ipse Filius… dicens: Pater qui misit me, maior me est?” – “(Arius says:) ‘Why do they blame me for saying “the Father is greater than I,” since the Son Himself testifies, “The Father who sent me is greater than I”?’” la.wikisource.org .

Arnobius responds by differentiating two “forms” (Latin forma) or states of Christ – essentially his divine condition and his human condition. “In ea forma, in qua Filius Patris est sine matre,ipse et Pater unum sunt : in ea vero forma, in qua Filius matris est sine Patre, Patre minor est. ” – “In that form in which the Son is (begotten) of the Father without a mother, He and the Father are one ; but in that form in which the Son is (born) of a mother without a father, He is less than the Father.” la.wikisource.org . This elegant formulation again distinguishes Christ’s eternal generation (His divine nature: Son of God born of the Father alone) and His temporal birth (His human nature: Son of Mary, born without a human father). In the first respect, Christ can say “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30); in the second respect, He can say “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Arnobius goes even further to emphasize Christ’s true humanity: “Naturam enim servilem assumpsit, in qua non solum Deo Patre minor esset, sed etmatre tantum minor esset, quantum matris Virginis annositas exstitisset.” – “For He assumed the nature of a servant (a slave, i.e. a human nature in its lowliness), in which He would be not only less than God the Father, but even less than His mother by as much as the age of His Virgin Mother exceeded His (at any given time).” la.wikisource.org . This somewhat startling comment highlights that in Christ’s humanity, He truly experienced normal human development and subjection: for instance, as a child, Jesus was obedient and “inferior” to Mary and Joseph (cf. Luke 2:51). Arnobius’s point is that Christ’s creaturely human nature places Him in a position of economic or relational subordination – to the Father (since as man He prays to and obeys the Father), and even to creatures (He could be said to “grow in wisdom… and favor with men,” and be cared for by His mother). None of this detracts from His divine nature, which remains fully equal to the Father.

Serapion appears taken aback by this explanation, even misconstruing it as something “novel” or quasi-mythological. He snidely responds: “Novum hodie mihi dedisti responsum, in quo matrem Domini, ut gentiles delirant, Mariam esse genitricem sine Patre ejus” – “Today you have given me a new answer, in which (you say) that the Mother of the Lord – as the pagans rave – Mary, is the begetter without His Father” la.wikisource.org . He then challenges: “Dic cujus Pater Deus genitor sine matre exstiterit?” – “Tell me, of whom has God as Father been the begetter without a mother?” la.wikisource.org . Serapion is essentially testing Arnobius on the Virgin Birth : The pagan jibe likely refers to myths of gods having offspring without consorts, implying Arnobius’s statement sounds like a heretical fable. Arnobius, however, stands by the uniqueness of Christ’s twofold origin – begotten of the Father from eternity (no mother in that context) and born of Mary in time (no human father). He asks Serapion if the previous day’s discussion did not already establish the Father’s not being “greater” than the Son in divine generation la.wikisource.org .

To resolve Serapion’s lingering doubt, Arnobius now turns explicitly to Scriptural exegesis and the authority of St. Paul. He quotes Philippians 2:5–11 , which beautifully expounds Christ’s two states (the form of God and the form of a servant). Arnobius asks Serapion: do you agree with Paul’s words about Christ, or is Paul wrong? Serapion affirms Paul is truthful la.wikisource.org . Arnobius then recites: “Memor es dixisse eum de Domino Jesu Christo,Qui cum esset in forma Dei, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo (Philip. II, 6)…” – “Recall that he (Paul) said of the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Who, though He was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God’ (Phil 2:6)…” la.wikisource.org . Serapion acknowledges this, though he notes Arnobius hasn’t quoted the entire sentence la.wikisource.org . This prompts Arnobius to draw out the full meaning. First, he has Serapion define “the form of God.” Serapion answers in good biblical language: the form of God is the boundless, immeasurable nature of God that “fills heaven and earth,” is “immensus et incomprehensibilis, inaestimabilis, invisibilis” (immense, incomprehensible, beyond estimation, invisible) la.wikisource.org – echoing Isaiah 40:12 and other Old Testament descriptions. Arnobius enthusiastically agreesla.wikisource.org .

With forma Dei thus identified as all the attributes of full divinity, Arnobius completes Paul’s thought: “Jam modo integram Apostoli sententiam proferam de Filio Dei.Qui cum in forma Dei esset (Philip. II, 6), hoc est, invisibilis, incomprehensibilis, inaestimabilis, et esset aequalis, non minor, sed ea forma, et in ea aequalitate qua est Pater, exinanivit semetipsum.” – “Now I will put forth the Apostle’s complete statement about the Son of God: ‘Who, when He was in the form of God’ (Phil 2:6), that is , invisible, incomprehensible, immeasurable (etc.), and was equal – not lesser – in that form and equality in which He is as the Father, emptied Himself.” la.wikisource.org . This is a richly compressed exegesis. Arnobius interprets “being in the form of God” to mean being in all the fullness of the Godhead, equal to the Father – precisely what Arians denied. Yet, Christ “emptied Himself” (exinanivit semetipsum), which Paul explains in the next verse as “taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men… he humbled himself unto death” (Phil 2:7–8). Arnobius paraphrases this: “Interpretatus est istum sermonem dicens,in quo exinanivit seipsum, id est, quia cum esset Dominus formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus… humiliavit seipsum… usque ad mortem.” – “(Paul) himself interpreted this phrase by saying ‘He emptied Himself,’ that is: since He was Lord, by taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men… He humbled Himself even unto death.” la.wikisource.org .

From this Pauline hymn, Arnobius drives home a two-nature conclusion : the same Christ who “was in the form of God” (fully divine and equal to the Father) “took the form of a slave” (became fully human and mortal). Therefore, it is one and the same Son who can utter two seemingly opposite statements:

  • “Ego et Pater unum sumus” – “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30, a claim to equality)

  • “Pater maior me est” – “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28, a statement of inequality)

Arnobius ties each saying to one of Christ’s “forms”: “Hic ergo qui est Filius Patris sine initio natus ex eo Patre… hic dicit,Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30). Hic autem natus ex matre sine Patre carnali, hic dicit, Pater maior me est (Joan. XIV, 28).” – “Thus, the One who as Son was born from the Father without beginning… He says, ‘I and the Father are one.’ But the One who was born of a mother without a human father, He says, ‘The Father is greater than I.’” la.wikisource.org . The repetition of “hic” (“this one”) emphasizes it is one and the same Person speaking in both cases, albeit speaking from two different vantage points (His divine identity vs. His assumed humanity). Arnobius’s explanation here is essentially the classic Catholic interpretation of John 14:28 that would be echoed by countless later theologians: Christ’s inferiority to the Father is according to His human nature , not according to His divine nature.

Rejecting Nestorian “Two Sons” and Affirming Mary as Theotokos

Serapion concedes the logic of Arnobius’s argument but then raises a final worry: doesn’t this effectively maketwo Christs or two Sons – one divine, one human? He asks pointedly, perhaps in echoes of Nestorius’s alleged teaching : “Ergo duo sunt filii Dei, et unus de Patre sine matre, alius de matre sine Patre est?” – “So there are two Sons of God then? One (born) of the Father without a mother, and another (born) of a mother without a father?” la.wikisource.org . This challenge shows Serapion’s lingering fear of dualism in Christ. Arnobius replies by reminding Serapion of the analogy he gave earlier: “Puto te non esse immemorem ostendisse me quidemduos oculos , sed unum aspectum ; duas aures , sed unum auditum ; duas nares , sed unum odoratum.” – “I think you have not forgotten that I showed (you) two eyes, but one sight; two ears, but one hearing; two nostrils, but one smell.” la.wikisource.org . The reiteration of the metaphor hammers home that two principles can co-operate as one. Just as we do not have two consciousnesses from our two eyes, but one visual perception, neither do we have two Sons or two Christs when divinity and humanity unite in Jesus – we have one Lord Jesus Christ. Thus Arnobius explicitly denies the Nestorian error that would make Christ into essentially two persons. The Conflictus even includes direct anathemas of the “two Sons” doctrine (more on that below), aligning itself with Pope St. Damasus and others who condemned any such notion la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org.

Another significant aspect of Arnobius’s Christology is his affirmation of the Virgin Mary’s title as Theotokos (God-bearer). This was a central issue in the Nestorian controversy (Cyril of Alexandria insisted on Theotokos , while Nestorius preferred Christotokos , Mother of Christ but not of God). In the dialogue, Arnobius clearly teaches that Mary gave birth to the one person of Christ who is God incarnate. Serapion acknowledges this, saying: “de nativitate Jesu Christi, in qua Deus et homo nobis per duas substantias declaratus est,in quibus sanctam Mariam et Χριστοτόκον et Θεοτόκον exstitisse, te astruente et probante, cognovi.” – “Regarding the birth of Jesus Christ – in which God and man is manifested to us through two substances – I have learned (from you), by your assertion and proof, that in this birth holy Mary was both Christotokos and Theotokos.” la.wikisource.org . Arnobius had evidently demonstrated that because Jesus is Deus et homo (God and man) in two natures, Mary can rightly be called Theotokos (God-bearer), since the person she bore is truly God, and Christotokos (Christ-bearer), since He is the Messiah in the flesh. By including both terms, Arnobius leaves no room for Nestorian minimalism – he upholds the orthodox doctrine of Mary’s divine motherhood , just as the Council of Ephesus (431) had decreed. This places the Conflictus squarely in line with St. Cyril of Alexandria (the great opponent of Nestorius), further underlining the author’s intent to show Roman orthodoxy’s agreement with Alexandrian (Cyrilline) theology on Christ’s person.

Other Scriptural and Theological Points

Throughout the dialogue, Arnobius weaves in many Scriptural references beyond those already mentioned. For example, early on he cites the Old Testament to prove God’s might and uniqueness: Egypt’s own land testifies to God’s power, he says, because it was struck by “decem plagis” (the ten plagues) and lost its king in the Red Sea – a direct nod to the Exodus story la.wikisource.org . He also quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 , “Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est” (The Lord your God is one God), in affirming monotheism la.wikisource.org . Later, to describe God’s immensity, Serapion references Isaiah’s imagery of God measuring the heavens with His palm la.wikisource.org . The New Testament is heavily used: besides John and Philippians as discussed, Arnobius quotes or alludes to St. Paul’s letters (e.g. he might be referencing Romans or other epistles when speaking of grace, see below) and the Gospels. There is even an interesting aside where Serapion accuses Arnobius of teaching things “by human reasoning” not by “auctoritas Evangelica” (Gospel authority) la.wikisource.org , to which Arnobius responds by doubling down on showing that reason and Scripture concur (as he then demonstrates with Paul’s text). This interplay shows the author’s method: use rational argument (like analogies) but always confirm it with Scriptural authority.

One brief thread in Liber Secundus touches on divine grace and free will , which seems tangential to the main Christology but is revealing of Arnobius’s theological stance. At one point Serapion says, “Non ita docentem Augustinum audivi” – “I have not heard Augustine teach in that way” la.wikisource.org , referring to some issue (likely grace, law, and human obedience). Arnobius challenges him and eventually replies: “seipsum ore suo haereticum detegat, qui Augustinum putaverit in aliquo reprehendendum… nam ea quae ejus nunc profero,ac si sacratissima apostolorum scripta sic credo, et teneo, et defendo ” – “Anyone who thinks Augustine’s words are to be censured proves himself a heretic by his own mouth… for what I now quote of his I believe, hold, and defend as if they were the most sacred writings of the apostles.” la.wikisource.org . Arnobius then proceeds to quote Augustine on grace: “Ait enim:Inquirens in divinis Scripturis quid sit gratia …” – “For (Augustine) says: ‘Inquiring in the divine Scriptures what grace is…’” la.wikisource.org . The content of the Augustine quote (likely from one of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works or sermons) isn’t fully given in our excerpt, but Arnobius’s attitude is clear: he views St. Augustine’s teaching as essentially authoritative , on par with apostolic tradition. This underscores the Augustinian orthodoxy of the Conflictus’s author. It also serves an apologetic purpose: by invoking Augustine (a Latin Father) alongside Eastern authorities like Athanasius or Cyril (implied by the theology), Arnobius shows the universal consensus backing the Catholic position. For Serapion (an “Egyptian”), Augustine’s name might carry less weight than it did in the West, but Arnobius positions him as a church doctor one contradicts at one’s peril.

In summary, Liber Secundus reinforces the two-natures doctrine by showing it makes sense of Scripture. It answers potential misinterpretations (like John 14:28) and heads off the Nestorian misunderstanding (“two Sons”). It also bolsters its case with patristic authority (e.g. Augustine). By the end of the dialogue proper, Serapion is portrayed as convinced. He declares: “Satisfactum esse desiderio meo fateor.Vere enim et duas naturas, et duas substantias evidenter asseruit. ” – “I confess that my desire has been satisfied. For truly [he/this] has clearly asserted two natures and two substances.” la.wikisource.org . Serapion then asks one final thing: assurance that Pope Leo I (the contemporary pope who authored the Tome of Leo defining two natures in 449) was in line with his predecessors. “Dominus meus vir apostolicus Leo papa venerabilis, priores suos in hac parte secutus est, ut alloqueretur Orientales…?” – “Did my lord, the apostolic man, Pope Leo the Venerable, follow his predecessors in this matter when he addressed the Easterners in writing…?” la.wikisource.org . This leads to the Conflictus’s conclusion, where Arnobius produces a document from an earlier pope to show that Leo’s teaching was not an innovation.

Use of Patristic and Conciliar Sources

One of the remarkable features of Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno is how it anchors its arguments in prior ecclesiastical authority , not only Scripture. The author was clearly well-versed in church tradition: he alludes to or explicitly cites a variety of Fathers and official statements to bolster the Roman position and show continuity of doctrine.

Pope Damasus’s Epistle and Anathemas

To answer Serapion’s question about Pope Leo’s adherence to tradition, Arnobius presents the text of a letter from Pope Damasus I (reigned 366–384) to Pauline of Antioch la.wikisource.org . This appears to be a version of the Tome of Damasus or a similar synodal letter which enumerated the orthodox faith and condemned various heresies after the Council of Nicaea. By quoting Damasus, Arnobius accomplishes two things: (1) He provides evidence that the bishops of Rome long before Leo held the same Christological and Trinitarian line; (2) He shows that the Roman see and the Antiochene Church (represented by Paulinus) were in agreement – implying that the Orientales (Easterners) have historically accepted the two-natures doctrine and the Trinity, contrary to what the Monophysite Egyptians might think.

The Epistola Damasi ad Paulinum in the Conflictus is presented almost verbatim and includes a series of anathemas. These anathemas systematically reject erroneous teachings and, by negation, clarify true doctrine. Key points from Damasus’s decree as cited la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org:

  • It notes that after the Council of Nicaea (325) and a council in Rome, a new error arose: some dared to say the Holy Spirit was made by the Son. In response, “anathematizamus eosqui… non proclamant Spiritum sanctum cum Patre et Filio unius potestatis esse atque substantiae.” – “we anathematize those who do not fully proclaim the Holy Spirit to be of one power and substance with the Father and the Son.” la.wikisource.org . This targets Macedonianism (the heresy that the Holy Spirit is a creature or lesser divine being). The Roman faith, as early as Damasus, clearly upheld the consubstantial divinity of the Holy Spirit , which would be affirmed by the First Council of Constantinople (381). Arnobius’s inclusion of this shows fidelity to the Trinitarian dogma in full, not just Christology.

  • Sabellianism is condemned: “Anathematizamus quoque eosqui Sabellii sequuntur errorem, eumdem dicentes Patrem esse quem et Filium.” – “We anathematize those who follow the error of Sabellius, saying that the Father is the same as the Son.” la.wikisource.org . This reiterates Arnobius’s own earlier refutation of Sabellian modalism; citing Damasus places the weight of papal authority on that refutation.

  • Arianism and Eunomianism : “Anathematizamus Arium atque Eunomium,qui pari impietate… Filium et Spiritum sanctum asserunt esse creaturas.” – “We anathematize Arius and Eunomius, who with equal impiety (though with different verbiage) assert that the Son and Holy Spirit are creatures.” la.wikisource.org . This reaffirms the Nicene faith that the Son is uncreated God, and extends it to Eunomius’s extreme Arian view.

  • Macedonians are explicitly named (confirming the earlier general anathema on Spirit-deniers): “Anathematizamus Macedonianos, qui de Arii stirpe venientes, non perfidiam mutavere, sed nomen.” – “We anathematize the Macedonians, who, coming from Arius’s stock, have only changed their name, not their perfidy.” la.wikisource.org .

  • Photinus is condemned: “Anathematizamus Photinum,qui Hebionis haeresim instaurans, Dominum Jesum Christum tantum ex Maria Virgine confitetur.” – “We anathematize Photinus, who, reviving the heresy of Ebion, professes that the Lord Jesus Christ [is] only from the Virgin Mary.” la.wikisource.org . Photinus (4th c.) taught Christ was essentially just a man (born of Mary, not pre-existent God the Word) – a kind of revived Adoptionism. Damasus’s (and Arnobius’s) inclusion of this anathema underscores belief in Christ’s eternal divine origin (Photinus’s denial would be the opposite of Arianism – instead of two Sons, Photinians have no divine Son at all, just an exalted man).

  • The letter then twice condemns those “qui duos filios Dei asserunt” – “who assert two Sons of God” la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org. One phrasing: “Anathematizamus eosqui duos in Salvatore filios confitentur: unum ante saecula, et alterum post assumptionem carnis ex Virgine. ” – “We anathematize those who confess two Sons in the Savior: one before the ages, and another after the assumption of flesh from the Virgin.” la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org. This is a direct rejection of any Nestorian-type division of Christ into a heavenly Son of God and an earthly son of Mary. By quoting this, Arnobius aligns the Roman stance with that of Damasus (and implicitly with St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others who fought Nestorianism later). It tells Serapion: we Romans abhor the “two Sons” error as much as you do. In the narrative, Serapion’s fear about “two Sons” is precisely alleviated by this kind of authoritative condemnation.

  • Apollinarianism is addressed: “Anathematizamus eosqui pro hominis anima rationabili et intelligibili dicunt Dei Verbum in humana carne versatum … sed [Christus] nostram, id est rationabilem et intelligibilem sine peccato animam susceperit atque salvaverit.” – “We anathematize those who say that, in place of a human rational and intellectual soul, the Word of God was present in human flesh… [we confess instead that Christ] assumed our rational and intellectual soul, without sin, and saved it.” la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org. This is a clear rejection of Apollinaris’s teaching that Jesus had no human soul (the Logos took its place). Damasus asserts Christ had a rational human soul, which is crucial for full humanity. Arnobius earlier implicitly affirmed this by insisting on duae substantiae integrae – two complete natures (which means a human soul was present). Including Damasus’s anathema makes that explicit and shows continuity with the anti-Apollinarian decisions of Rome and Alexandria (Cyril also insisted on Christ having a human soul).

  • A curious anathema: *“Anathematizamus eos *qui Verbum Dei Filium extensione, aut collectione, et a Patre separatum, insubstantivum, et finem habiturum esse contendunt.” – “We anathematize those who contend that the Word of God the Son became, by extension or diffusion, separate from the Father, without subsistence, and will have an end.” la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org. This seems to target some obscure Trinitarian or Christological error, possibly a mischaracterization of Arians or Photinians , suggesting the Son is an emanation that can dissolve. It reinforces the immutability and co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

  • The letter also has disciplinary canons (e.g., about bishops who moved sees, which Arnobius includes la.wikisource.org ), but more relevant are its concluding credal anathemas. A series of “Si quis non dixerit…” (If anyone does not say/hold…) formulas appear la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org, which read like a mini-creed with penalties against denial. Some highlights:

  • “Si quis non dixerit semper Patrem, semper Filium, semper Spiritum sanctum fuisse et esse, anathema sit.” – If anyone does not say that there always was and is always the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the eternal Trinity), let him be anathema la.wikisource.org .

  • “Si quis non dixerit Filium natum de Patre, id est de substantia divina ipsius, anathema sit.” – If anyone denies that the Son is born of the Father’s own divine substance, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org (against Arians/Eunomians) .

  • “Si quis non dixerit Verbum Domini Filium Dei, Deum verum sicut Patrem eius, et omnia posse, et omnia nosse, anathema sit.” – If anyone denies that the Lord’s Word, the Son of God, is true God like the Father, all-powerful and all-knowing, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org .

  • “Si quis dixerit quod in carne constitutus Filius Dei cum esset in terra, in coelis cum Patre non erat, anathema sit.” – If anyone says that when the Son of God was in the flesh on earth, He was not in heaven with the Father, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org . This affirms Christ’s divine omnipresence even during the Incarnation (a mystery later theologians would discuss in terms of the communicatio idiomatum).

  • “Si quis dixerit quod in passione crucis dolorem sustinebat Filius Dei, et non caro cum anima, quam induerat… anathema sit.” – If anyone says that in the passion on the cross the Son of God (in His divine nature) suffered pain, and not the flesh with the soul which He had assumed… let him be anathema la.wikisource.org . This important clause insists the impassible Godhead did not suffer , but Christ’s suffering is attributed to His flesh and rational soul – a direct response to Patripassian or Monophysite tendencies to say “God suffered.” It safeguards the doctrine that Christ’s humanity (body and soul) truly suffered and died, even as His divinity remained impassible. Arnobius essentially invoked this principle earlier (when he said Christ “exinanivit se” and took on passibility, and that the forma servi experienced suffering).

  • “Si quis non dixerit quod in carne quam assumpsit sedet ad dexteram Patris… anathema sit.” – If anyone denies that (Christ) in the flesh which He assumed sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come in that flesh to judge, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org . This affirms the permanence of Christ’s humanity (it wasn’t temporary or dissolved – He ascended bodily and remains incarnate).

  • “Si quis non dixerit Spiritum sanctum de Patre esse vere ac proprie sicut et Filium de divina substantia et Deum verum… anathema sit.” – If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, just as the Son is from the Father’s substance, and (if anyone denies the Spirit is) true God… anathema la.wikisource.org .

  • “Si quis non dixerit Spiritum sanctum omnia posse, omnia nosse, et ubique esse sicut Patrem et Filium, anathema sit… Si quis dixerit Spiritum sanctum facturam esse, aut per Filium factum, anathema sit.” – Denial of the Spirit’s omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence is anathema; saying the Spirit is a creature or made by the Son is anathema la.wikisource.org . This doubles down against Macedonianism.

  • “Si quis non dixerit… Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti unam divinitatem, potestatem, majestatem… ac veritatem, anathema sit.” – If anyone denies that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit have one divinity, power, majesty… and one will and truth, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org . And likewise, “Si quis tres personas non dixerit veras, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, aequales, semper viventes… omnia facientes… anathema sit.” – If anyone does not say three true Persons (Father, Son, Spirit) who are equal, ever-living, all-containing, all-creating, all-saving, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org .

  • Finally, to guard monotheism : “Si quis… dicens Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium eius, et Deum Spiritum sanctum,tres deos dici , et non Deum propter unam Divinitatem… anathema sit.” – If anyone partitions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, saying three gods are spoken of – and does not understand one God on account of the one Divinity … let him be anathema la.wikisource.org . And conversely, if anyone “subtracts” the Son and Spirit such that only the Father is considered one God, let him be anathema la.wikisource.org . This brilliantly repudiates both Tritheism and any idea that only the Father is really God (a sort of Unitarianism). The letter explains: while the term “gods” can be given to angels or saints in a derivative sense, with the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, due to their one equal Divinity, we speak not of gods but of one God la.wikisource.org . This is precisely the Deo trino et uno concept – three and one, properly understood.

By incorporating this extensive list, Arnobius shows that Roman orthodoxy circa A.D. 380 had already articulated a comprehensive stance on the Trinity and Incarnation. The Conflictus thus positions Pope Leo the Great’s teaching (in the 450s) as a direct continuation of Pope Damasus’s teaching in the 380s la.wikisource.org . It subtly counters any Egyptian claim that Rome introduced novelties at Chalcedon. In fact, at one point Arnobius explicitly says that Pope Leo sent letters to recall erring Eastern churches “according to ancient custom” (antiquo usu) la.wikisource.org , implying that Leo was consciously following the precedent of earlier popes like Damasus. This would be historically accurate, as Leo’s Tome (449) leans on the formulations of St. Hilary of Poitiers , St. Ambrose , and others, and was presented at Chalcedon as in line with St. Cyril and the ancient faith.

Other Patristic References

Beyond Damasus and Augustine (already discussed), the Conflictus hints at or aligns with other Fathers:

  • The “Greek champions of Orthodoxy, Athanasius and Cyril,” are not named in the text we have, but the Catholic Encyclopedia observes that the author’s main goal was to prove the agreement in faith between Rome and figures like St. Athanasius (who fought Arianism in the 4th century) and St. Cyril of Alexandria (who fought Nestorianism in the 5th) en.wikisource.org . This is borne out in content: the strong defense of consubstantial Trinity echoes Athanasius, and the insistence on Theotokos and one person-two natures echoes Cyril. It is quite possible the author had read translations of Cyril’s letters (Cyril’s anathemas against Nestorius likewise condemn anyone who says “Jesus was a God-bearing man” or divides the titles of Christ between two persons – similar to the stance here). Notably, Arnobius Junior has been speculated to have been involved in translating some of Cyril’s letters into Latin publishing.mpda.ru , which if true would explain his Cyrillian perspective.

  • The dialogue format itself has precedents in patristic literature – e.g., St. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (2nd c.), or Origen’s dialogues – though those were with non-Christians. In the 5th century, polemical dialogues against heretics became a popular genre in Latin. For instance, Vigilius of Thapsus (late 5th c.) wrote dialogues where Athanasius debates Arians, etc. The Conflictus fits into this tradition of using an imagined debate to convey theological truth in a lively way.

  • Arnobius’s high regard for St. Augustine (d. 430) is explicitly shown la.wikisource.org . He treats Augustine’s writings as virtually on par with Scripture, especially on the doctrine of grace. This is significant because, as noted, if Arnobius Junior of Gaul was semi-Pelagian, the Conflictus author stands in stark contrast by aligning fully with Augustine. He even challenges Serapion to produce anything in Augustine’s corpus that contradicts what Arnobius is teaching; failing that, Serapion would expose himself as heretical for doubting Augustine la.wikisource.org . This indicates the authority Augustine’s theology held in the West not long after his death – a point of pride for Roman orthodoxy against any who might question it (be they Eastern or Gallic). It also subtly suggests that the Monophysites, by resisting the developing consensus (which included Augustinian thought on grace and original sin), are out of step with the broader Church.

  • While not explicitly quoted, the theology resonates with St. Leo the Great. In fact, certain analogies (two eyes/one sight) are unique here, but Leo in his Tome uses the analogy of mind and body in one man to explain divinity and humanity in one Christ. Arnobius’s approach is very much in Leo’s spirit. Given Serapion specifically asks about Leo, the author clearly assumes Leo’s importance. Leo’s epistles to the East are mentioned la.wikisource.org , which likely include the Tome and letters after Chalcedon trying to reconcile the East.

In conclusion, the Conflictus is richly woven with prior patristic and conciliar thought. It is less an original dogmatic treatise and more a compendium of orthodox teaching put in dramatic form. As one scholar noted, it compiles “authoritative sources (Scripture, creeds, patristic letters) rather than presenting novel arguments” – hence earlier critics calling it somewhat “dilettante” in composition en.wikisource.org . But this compilation method served the goal of showing that the truth had already been established by the Church’s magisterium; Arnobius is essentially marshalling evidence of tradition to convince Serapion (and the reader) of the true doctrine.

Influence on Later Theological Development

The Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno , while not a landmark text like Augustine’s De Trinitate or Leo’s Tome , reflects and reinforced key theological developments of the 5th century that would shape Christianity thereafter. Its influence can be considered in a few ways:

  • Affirmation of Chalcedonian Christology: Written on the cusp of or during the Council of Chalcedon (451) , the Conflictus is a valuable witness to the formulation of dyophysite Christology. It essentially anticipates Chalcedon’s dogmatic definition that Christ is “one person in two natures, without confusion, change, division or separation.” By using accessible analogies and clear language, it likely helped catechize Latin audiences about these ideas. Although we have no evidence that the Conflictus directly influenced the council (Chalcedon’s definition was crafted by bishops drawing on sources like Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s letters), it certainly drew from the same well of tradition and contributed to the wider acceptance of Chalcedonian orthodoxy in the West. In later centuries, whenever theologians explained the hypostatic union (e.g., St. Boethius in Contra Eutychen , or the medieval Scholastics), they employed concepts seen here: the distinction of persona vs natura , the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties, as in affirming God suffered “according to the flesh”), etc. The neat parallel Arnobius draws – “as in the Trinity there is one essence in multiple persons, so in Christ one person in multiple natures” – is a didactic trope that echoed through medieval theology.

  • De Deo Uno et Trino Schema: The title and content “de Deo trino et uno” prefigure the later scholastic division of treatises De Deo Uno (On the one God, i.e., the divine essence) and De Deo Trino (On the Triune God, i.e., the three persons). By the high Middle Ages (e.g., in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae), this structure was standard: first consider God’s unity and attributes, then consider the Trinity arl-jrl.org . Arnobius’s dialogue, in effect, covers both unity (monotheism, one divine substance) and Trinity, showing how they reconcile. While it’s not a direct source for Scholastics, it is part of the continuity of Western reflection on these topics. It demonstrates that by 5th century’s end, Latin theologians had a firm grasp of how to speak about De Deo Uno et Trino , a foundation on which medieval thinkers built systematically.

  • Western-Eastern Theological Synthesis: The Conflictus consciously bridges Western and Eastern theological insights – citing a Western authority (Augustine) for grace and a roster of Eastern-oriented Christological terms (Theotokos, two natures as per Cyril, etc.). This kind of synthesis influenced later doctrinal developments by promoting a universal orthodoxy that wasn’t limited to one cultural perspective. For example, when the Second Council of Constantinople (553) revisited Christology, or later debates on monothelitism (one will vs two wills in Christ, 7th c.), the groundwork of speaking about distinctions within unity (persons, natures, wills) as laid by Chalcedon and works like Conflictus was crucial. Arnobius’s emphasis that Christ’s human will and soul are intact (against Apollinaris) would be important when monothelitism was condemned (Christ had a human will to save human wills).

  • Analogy and Language Influences: It’s possible that certain analogies or phrasing from the Conflictus found resonance in later writers. The two eyes/one sight analogy is not common in earlier extant works, so later authors using similar comparisons might have drawn from either a shared oral tradition or even read this dialogue. Medieval commentators sometimes used analogies of body and soul, or two arms doing one action, etc., to explain Christological or Trinitarian mysteries; Arnobius’s analogies belong to that pedagogical tradition.

  • Catechetical and Polemical Usage: The influence of Conflictus might be seen less in grand theological treatises and more in the teaching and polemical literature through the early medieval period. It provided a compact source for understanding various heresies and their refutations. For instance, the list of anathemas from Damasus within it is like a mini-manual of heresies. This could have been useful for later clergy to identify and combat deviations. In fact, we find that in the Early Middle Ages, compilations of heresies (like Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies or De haeresibus) echo many of the same definitions – Sabellians say Father=Son, Photinians deny Christ’s divinity, etc. Arnobius’s work, being available in Latin, could have been one conduit through which such knowledge was passed on.

  • No Major Theological Novelty: It must be said that Conflictus introduced no new theological development per se; rather its value is in consolidating and transmitting the developments of the Nicene and Chalcedonian eras. In terms of direct citations by later thinkers, we do not find many explicit references to Arnobius Junior in scholastic or Reformation-era works. His name did not become as famous as, say, Augustine or Athanasius. Nevertheless, his Conflictus reflects the maturation of Christological doctrine which would dominate both Eastern and Western theology. It stands in line with other 5th–6th century efforts (like Boethius’s treatises, or Leontius of Byzantium in the East) that all worked out the implications of one person, two natures.

  • Modern Theological Appreciation: In recent times, scholars have given Conflictus a fresh look, recognizing it as a valuable witness to patristic theology. Some modern Orthodox theologians, for example, laud it as an excellent exposition of the Church’s Christological teaching. It has been called “a vividly revealing [work of] the Church’s Christological doctrine, worthy to be considered part of orthodox Tradition” publishing.mpda.ru . Such praise suggests that the Conflictus is being appreciated as more than a quaint dialogue – rather, as a concise summary of orthodox belief that can still inform today’s theological understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Reception and Scholarly Interpretation

The Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno had a somewhat obscure transmission history. It survives in the Patrologia Latina corpus (vol. 53) and a few manuscript traditions, but for centuries it was overshadowed by more prominent fathers. Here is an overview of its reception:

  • Late Antiquity and Middle Ages: There is scant evidence that the Conflictus was widely read or cited in antiquity. It is not mentioned explicitly by early medieval compilers like Isidore of Seville in De viris illustribus (though Isidore does list an Arnobius who wrote commentaries). The Gelasian Decree (6th century) – a document listing approved and apocryphal works – does not mention Arnobius Junior by name, but it does list a work “Liber Predestinatus” which later was ascribed to him. It’s possible that due to the semi-Pelagian taint of Arnobius Junior’s other work, Conflictus did not enjoy official promotion. However, it clearly survived in manuscripts, being copied presumably in monastic scriptoria. The dialogue genre in which it’s written was certainly popular enough that similar works were transmitted.

  • Early Modern Rediscovery: In the Renaissance and Reformation era, interest in patristic sources surged. The Conflictus was first published in a critical edition by Franciscus Feuardent in 1596 , appended to a work of Irenaeus publishing.mpda.ru . This indicates that by the 16th century the text was recovered and deemed useful perhaps as an anti-heretical resource (the 16th century, grappling with anti-Trinitarians like Servetus and Christological debates, might have found a 5th-century dialogue against heresies quite relevant). In 1643, Jean Sirmond published the Praedestinatus under Arnobius’s name, again stirring interest in Arnobius’s corpus en.wikisource.org .

  • Modern Scholarship: The late 19th and early 20th century saw scholarly investigations into Arnobius the Younger. In 1887, scholar G. Bümmer speculated that the Conflictus might have been written by Faustus of Riez , a famous 5th-century Gallic bishop en.wikisource.org . Bümmer’s reasoning: Faustus was a known anti-Arian and anti-Nestorian polemicist; however, Faustus was also semi-Pelagian. Critics of Bümmer (and the Catholic Encyclopedia author) pointed out that Faustus’s theology would not align with the strongly Augustinian tone of Conflictus en.wikisource.org . Moreover, Faustus’s literary style was more sophisticated than the somewhat derivative style of Conflictus. Thus Faustus is ruled out. Instead, scholars like Germain Morin (1911) and H. Kayser (1912) revisited the question. Morin made a convincing case (as referenced in modern bibliographies la.wikipedia.org ) that Arnobius Junior likely did write Praedestinatus (anonymously) and had semi-Pelagian views, which complicates attributing Conflictus to him.

The consensus that emerged, as summarized by the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), is that the true author of Conflictus is best seen as an anonymous Italian monk , writing in Rome, who took the name “Arnobius” perhaps as a literary persona en.wikisource.org . The text itself only calls the disputant “Arnobius, a priest of the Roman Church” la.wikipedia.org . It’s possible the author chose the name Arnobius to lend weight (Arnobius of Sicca was known for an earlier apologetic work). Regardless, modern scholars treat Conflictus as a distinct work, sometimes listing it as Conflictus Arnobii Catholici cum Serapione in catalogs (with Arnobius Catholicus being essentially a stand-in for orthodox champion).

  • 20th and 21st Century Editions: A modern critical edition with introduction, translation, and notes by Francesco Gori was published in 1993 (Arnobio il Giovane – Disputa tra Arnobio e Serapione) publishing.mpda.ru . Gori’s work, part of the Corona Patrum series, helped place Conflictus in context and made it more accessible to scholars. Additionally, Arnobius’s works (including Conflictus) have been edited in the Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (CCSL vol. 25A, 1992) publishing.mpda.ru .

These scholarly efforts underline a renewed interest in Arnobius the Younger. He is now recognized as, in the words of one recent study, an “undeservedly forgotten outstanding polemicist and extraordinary exegete” publishing.mpda.ru . His Conflictus is praised for “brightly displaying the Church’s Christological doctrine” and fully deserving to be considered part of the patrimony of orthodoxy publishing.mpda.ru . This re-appraisal is partly due to scholars examining the semi-Pelagian controversy and realizing Arnobius Junior stands at an intersection of several 5th-century debates (grace and free will, Christology, Trinitarianism).

  • Theological Significance vs. Literary Merit: Some earlier critics had a dim view of the Conflictus’s literary merit, calling it dilettantish en.wikisource.org . It is true that the dialogue’s dramatic quality is secondary to its didactic purpose – Serapion is something of a straw man who eventually concedes to every point. Modern readers might find the dialogue lack suspense or character development. However, the value of the work lies in its content , not its artfulness. It systematically covers the major heresies of the time and their refutation. Modern historians of doctrine appreciate it as a window into how a 5th-century Catholic might have synthesized centuries of dogma into a coherent teaching tool.

  • Authorship Debates Continuing: The question “Did Arnobius the Younger really write Conflictus? ” is still posed in academic circles. As noted, recent studies lean toward seeing Conflictus and the Commentary on Psalms as by different authors, because it’s hard to imagine one man being a semi-Pelagian in one work and a staunch Augustinian in another, unless he had a dramatic conversion of thought. Some have conjectured that perhaps Arnobius Junior later in life changed his views under Roman influence, which could reconcile the difference. But there is no direct evidence of that. Thus, many catalogues now list Conflictus Arnobii cum Serapione as pseudo-Arnobian. The Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity entry (mentioned in search results) straightforwardly calls it an “anti-Monophysite disputation written between 449 and 451,” without insisting on the author’s identity referenceworks.brill.com . This implicitly acknowledges our inability to be certain. In any case, the name “Arnobius” remains attached to it by convention.

  • Historical Insights: Beyond theology, historians use Conflictus to glean insights into the post-Chalcedon dynamics. It exemplifies how the Roman Church tried to persuade the Oriental dissidents through dialogue and reference to earlier common authorities (e.g., the attempt to woo back the Antiochene church by referencing Damasus’s letter to Paulinus – Paulinus was involved in the Antiochian Schism of the late 4th century, and Rome backed him). It also testifies to the Roman self-understanding of primacy – Arnobius speaks ex parte sedis apostolicae (on behalf of the Apostolic See) la.wikisource.org , and uses that position to define orthodoxy. Modern church historians find in such texts the roots of later assertions of papal authority in doctrinal matters.

In summary, the Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno has journeyed from near-obscurity to being recognized as a gem of late patristic theology. Its historical context (5th-century Christological controversies) and theological content (robust defense of Trinitarian and Chalcedonian doctrine) make it an object of interest for theologians and historians alike. Modern scholarship has clarified its background and separated fact from earlier conjecture: it is likely not by the semi-Pelagian Arnobius of Gaul, but by a like-minded Roman contemporary committed to Augustine and Leo. Regardless of authorship, the work stands on its own as a testament to the Church’s resolve in articulating the mystery of “God Three and One.”

Through an engaging dialogue, it encapsulates how the early Church navigated heresy and truth : by holding fast to Scripture, revering the insights of holy Fathers, and employing analogies and reason – all under the guidance of the Apostolic Tradition – to confess one God in Trinity and the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, true God and true man la.wikisource.org la.wikisource.org.

Sources:

Sources

  1. la.wikisource.org
  2. la.wikisource.org
  3. en.wikisource.org
  4. en.wikisource.org
  5. en.wikisource.org
  6. en.wikisource.org
  7. la.wikisource.org
  8. la.wikisource.org
  9. en.wikisource.org
  10. la.wikisource.org
  11. la.wikisource.org
  12. la.wikisource.org
  13. la.wikisource.org
  14. la.wikisource.org
  15. la.wikisource.org
  16. la.wikisource.org
  17. la.wikisource.org
  18. la.wikisource.org
  19. la.wikisource.org
  20. la.wikisource.org
  21. la.wikisource.org
  22. la.wikisource.org
  23. la.wikisource.org
  24. la.wikisource.org
  25. la.wikisource.org
  26. la.wikisource.org
  27. la.wikisource.org
  28. la.wikisource.org
  29. la.wikisource.org
  30. la.wikisource.org
  31. la.wikisource.org
  32. la.wikisource.org
  33. la.wikisource.org
  34. la.wikisource.org
  35. la.wikisource.org
  36. la.wikisource.org
  37. la.wikisource.org
  38. la.wikisource.org
  39. la.wikisource.org
  40. la.wikisource.org
  41. la.wikisource.org
  42. la.wikisource.org
  43. la.wikisource.org
  44. la.wikisource.org
  45. la.wikisource.org
  46. la.wikisource.org
  47. la.wikisource.org
  48. la.wikisource.org
  49. la.wikisource.org
  50. la.wikisource.org
  51. la.wikisource.org
  52. la.wikisource.org
  53. la.wikisource.org
  54. la.wikisource.org
  55. la.wikisource.org
  56. la.wikisource.org
  57. la.wikisource.org
  58. la.wikisource.org
  59. la.wikisource.org
  60. la.wikisource.org
  61. la.wikisource.org
  62. la.wikisource.org
  63. la.wikisource.org
  64. la.wikisource.org
  65. la.wikisource.org
  66. la.wikisource.org
  67. la.wikisource.org
  68. la.wikisource.org
  69. la.wikisource.org
  70. la.wikisource.org
  71. la.wikisource.org
  72. la.wikisource.org
  73. la.wikisource.org
  74. la.wikisource.org
  75. la.wikisource.org
  76. la.wikisource.org
  77. la.wikisource.org
  78. la.wikisource.org
  79. la.wikisource.org
  80. la.wikisource.org
  81. en.wikisource.org
  82. la.wikisource.org
  83. en.wikisource.org
  84. en.wikisource.org
  85. referenceworks.brill.com
  86. la.wikisource.org
  87. la.wikisource.org
  88. la.wikisource.org
  89. la.wikisource.org
  90. en.wikisource.org
  91. la.wikisource.org